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

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Steve Matheson- another evo intellectual coward

-
Steve Matheson runs a blog called Quintessence of Dust.

He says:
My main theme is scientific explanation.


With that in mind Steve- a proud member of the NCSE's "Project Steve"- doesn't provide any scientific explanation for how blind, undirected processes can cobble together the inron/ exon alternative (gene) splicing mechanism. He can only harp- via ignorance I might add- on Mike Gene's front-loaded evolution.

It appears he likes to criticize his opponents but misses the obvious:

The way to refute ID, Steve, is by actually substantiating the claims of your position!

Imagine that!

So have at it Mr scientific explanation.

Or is the problem that you can't?

35 Comments:

  • At 8:58 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    The way to refute ID, Steve, is by actually substantiating the claims of your position!

    Which ID position is that Joe? The one that GAWD (Great Awesome Wonderful Designer) poofed all animals into existence as they are 6K years ago, or the one that GAWD poofed the front-loaded genes into existence billions of years ago?

    They both can't be right Joe, but they sure both can be wrong.

     
  • At 1:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    IOW Thorton, you can't substantiate the claims of your position.

    Understood.

     
  • At 2:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Which ID position is that Joe? The one that GAWD (Great Awesome Wonderful Designer) poofed all animals into existence as they are 6K years ago, or the one that GAWD poofed the front-loaded genes into existence billions of years ago?

    They both can't be right Joe, but they sure both can be wrong.



    Yes, both of your strawmen can be wrong and ID will not be refuted.

    But more importantly you still wouldn't have any positive evidence for your position.

     
  • At 3:43 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    T: "Which ID position is that Joe? The one that GAWD (Great Awesome Wonderful Designer) poofed all animals into existence as they are 6K years ago, or the one that GAWD poofed the front-loaded genes into existence billions of years ago?

    They both can't be right Joe, but they sure both can be wrong."


    J: "Yes, both of your strawmen can be wrong and ID will not be refuted."


    Since you think front loading is wrong and creation of entire animals is wrong, exactly how and when do you think the designing did happen?

     
  • At 4:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Since you think front loading is wrong and creation of entire animals is wrong, exactly how and when do you think the designing did happen?

    No I think this:

    Which ID position is that Joe? The one that GAWD (Great Awesome Wonderful Designer) poofed all animals into existence as they are 6K years ago, or the one that GAWD poofed the front-loaded genes into existence billions of years ago?

    represents two strawmen.


    Ya see as I have been saying for many years- in the absence of direct observation or designer input the only way to make any scientific determination about the who and how is by studying the design in question.

    But right now we have a bunch of ignorant fucks- like you- with a handful of promissory notes, throwing stones, trying to ward off the inevitable.

     
  • At 4:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The one that GAWD (Great Awesome Wonderful Designer) poofed all animals into existence as they are 6K years ago, or the one that GAWD poofed the front-loaded genes into existence billions of years ago?

    Strawman-
    The designers need not have been great, nor awesome nor wonderful

    Strawman-
    The designers need not have designed either 6,000 years ago nor billions of years ago- there are plenty of openings between those two extremes.

    Strawman-
    Not all the animals needed to be poofed into existence

    Strawman-
    Poofing doesn't have to be part of design.

    We do not have any experience nor observations of designers poofing things into existence.


    IOW Thorton time and again you have proven to be an ignorant ass.

    It's as if you, blipey Richtard Hughes, and Zachriel are vying for the "ignorant asshole of the year" award.

    It's a very close race....

     
  • At 4:29 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    OK, so you have no clue who the designer is, or if there was more than one designer, or when the design took place, or how long it took, or by what mechanisms, or with what materials, or if the designer was one-and-done or is still tinkering today.

    In other words, you are the ignorant fuck with a handful of promissory notes, throwing stones.

     
  • At 5:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Wrong again you ignorant fuck.

    Ya see ID isn't about any of that.

    IOW not only are you ignorant about ID, you are just plain ole ignorant.

     
  • At 6:01 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    OK, so you have no clue who the designer is, or if there was more than one designer, or when the design took place, or how long it took, or by what mechanisms, or with what materials, or if the designer was one-and-done or is still tinkering today.


    Ya see ID isn't about any of that.


    Then what is ID about Joe, if not a transparent attempt by certain religious organizations to get around the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause and get their religious bullshit into public school science classes?

    Since ID isn't worth a flying fuck as a scientific tool, what good is it?

     
  • At 7:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Then what is ID about Joe, if not a transparent attempt by certain religious organizations to get around the 1st Amendment Establishment Clause and get their religious bullshit into public school science classes?

    1- You do not need to worry about that.

    If you could support your position ID would go away.

    It is the failure of you and your ilk to provide positive evidence for your claims that has allowed ID to stay around.

    2- ID is about the detection and study of the design.

    Ya see asswipe, once design is detected then people will want answers to those questions you ask- and that will spawn new areas of research.

    With archaeology FIRST they need to detect design.

    Then they study what they find.

    That is how they (try to) learn about the people that left the stuff behind.

    You also go about figuring out how it works.

    For example- as I have told you- only under the design inference would we be looking for software that controls the hardware- programming that controls transcription and translation- the programming of life.

    That said obviously your position isn't worth a flying fuck because in all of your spewage you still haven't been able to provide any positive evidence for it.

     
  • At 1:08 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    It is the failure of you and your ilk to provide positive evidence for your claims that has allowed ID to stay around.

    LOL! Sure thing Joey. That's why every major college and university in the world has undergrad and grad classes based on ToE, and every biological and genetics lab in existence bases their work on ToE.

    ID has a handful of pathetic idiots like you sitting in your parent's basement, wanking on their keyboards, and telling themselves how ID is on the road to victory.

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

    That's why every major college and university in the world has undergrad and grad classes based on ToE, and every biological and genetics lab in existence bases their work on ToE.

    And you still can't figure out a way to objectively test it!

    Heck you morons can't even come up with a testable hypothesis for its proposed mechanisms!

    You have nothing beyond some consensus.

    What do they "teach" for the ToE?

    There aren't any experiments which demonstrate the transformations required are even possible.

    There aren't any quantitative measuements.

    IOW asshole it is very telling that you cannot provide any positive evidence for your position.

    Why is that?

    Why is it that the only thing you can do is to ignorantly flail away at ID, when the only thing you need to do is actually substantiate the claims of your position?

    IOW why are you such a fucking intellectual coward?

     
  • At 1:08 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    T: "OK, so you have no clue who the designer is, or if there was more than one designer, or when the design took place, or how long it took, or by what mechanisms, or with what materials, or if the designer was one-and-done or is still tinkering today."

    J: "Ya see asswipe, once design is detected then people will want answers to those questions you ask- and that will spawn new areas of research."


    Ahhh! There's the problem! All these wonderful things ID promises can't happen until design is detected in biological entities. The reason ID now is so worthless is that the "design is detected" part hasn't happened yet.

    Thanks for the clarification

     
  • At 1:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    There's the problem! All these wonderful things ID promises can't happen until design is detected in biological entities.

    ID doesn't make those promises dipshit.

    It is just guaranteed to happen given human nature.

    The reason ID now is so worthless is that the "design is detected" part hasn't happened yet.

    That is false.

    Design has been detected- in living organisms, in the universe, in the solar system.

    There is evidence for design in cosmology, physics, chemistry and biology.

    However there isn't any positive evidence for your position.

    All you have is the refusal to allow the design inference no matter what.

     
  • At 1:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Why is it that the only thing you can do is to ignorantly flail away at ID, when the only thing you need to do is actually substantiate the claims of your position?

    IOW why are you such a fucking intellectual coward?

     
  • At 2:42 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Design has been detected- in living organisms, in the universe, in the solar system.

    There is evidence for design in cosmology, physics, chemistry and biology.


    Poor deluded Joey. Still to stupid to realize that "this looks designed to me!!" isn't scientific evidence.

    Just sad.

    Which has more CSI Joey - a human or an amoeba?

     
  • At 3:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It "looks designed" because it was designed.

    And all you have is "well it looks designed but it ain't because I sed so."

    Which has more CSI Joey - a human or an amoeba?

    It doesn't matter.

    The fact they both contain CSI is evidence for ID.

    The fact that you don't have any evidence for your sad position strengthens that design inference.

     
  • At 6:17 PM, Blogger Doublee said…

    The great epistemological question for the theory of evolution never goes away.

    It never goes away because it is never answered.

    As far as I have been able to figure out, this is the epistemology of evolution.

    1. Evolution is true because ID is not scientific.

    2. Evoluton is true because the majority of evolutionary scientists say it is.

    3. Evolution is true because ID doesn't make predictions.

    4. Evolution is true because you can't put God into a test tube.

    5. Evolution is true because ID is a plot to get religion taught in the class rooms.

    With such convincing arguments, how can anyone doubt the theory of evolution?

     
  • At 7:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thanks Doublee.

    Yes it is funny that the only positive evidence for their position is to disregard ours...

     
  • At 12:58 PM, Blogger Doublee said…

    Joe G:

    Ever since I read William Dembski's introduction to Reclaiming Science from Darwinism where he said:

    [T]here is no rational connection between the mountains of evidence cited by Darwinists and the grand claim they make that all organisms are descended from a universal common ancestor via a purposeless material process...

    ...I have been pursuisng the epistemology of the theory of evolution on various blogs including yours.

    As I have continued unfailingly to get non-responsive answers, deflective answers, and even the classic answers, I began to get the message (as if I didn't know what that message was already).

    Darwinists cannot justify their theory on rational grounds, and therefore they must always dance around the issue. Evolution must be true because according to their religion there is no other possibility.

    My favorite response from one poster some time ago, after he had cited all the classic evidence for evolution (common ancestry, the fossil record, etc.), was this (paraphrased):

    Yes, it is rational to conclude from the evidence that evolution is true.

     
  • At 1:31 PM, Blogger Doublee said…

    So, how does science answer the great epistemological question regarding the theory of evoluton?

    I have not seen this subject discussed very much. From my very limited background, I see two possible approaches.

    One approach is to simulate evolution on a computer. What I have read so far does not bode well for the theory. As David Berlinski says, those simulations that mimic evoluton do not work, and those simulations that do work are not Darwinian.

    One problem I see with an evolutionary algorithms is that they are only superficial analogies of the evolutionary process.

    I was a logic design engineer, and all my designs were run a computer emulation. The computer emulation was based on knowledge of actual physical and electrical parameters. Inductances, capactitances, and signal delays could be calculated and were part of the program. The emulation was as close to a physical chip as you could get without actually having one on the test bed.

    If I understand what developmental biology is, then this is where our understanding of the mechanisms of evolution has to come from.

    Science has to know how an organism is built in the first place before it can have any idea how the design can be modified in the second place.

    Again, these are observations based on my understanding. I welcome any answer to the great epistemological question.

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

    Epistemological?

    Is that a protestant denomination, like Episcopalian?

    :)

     
  • At 12:13 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Come on, Thorton; you know what ID is about.

    ID is about saying "No." That's it. There is nothing else.

    When asked, ID supporters such as Joe have only one thing:

    "ID isn't about that." What the fuck is about then, Joe? Specifically.

     
  • At 8:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Come on, Thorton; you know what ID is about.

    Obviously neither one of you do.

    And obviouslky neither one of you can provide any positive evidence for your position.

    What the fuck is about then, Joe? Specifically.

    It is about the detection and study of design- just as I have been saying for years- just as all IDists have been saying for years.

     
  • At 8:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Exposing blipey's readoing comprehension issues:

    Already answered the question in this thread- the question what is ID about?

     
  • At 11:55 AM, Blogger Doublee said…

    Joe G:
    Is that a protestant denomination, like Episcopalian?
    It might as well be, since epistemology is a "religion" that evolutionists refuse to join.

     
  • At 12:37 PM, Blogger Doublee said…

    Based on the fossil record, the idea that animals were "poofed" into existence is not all that unreasonable. Even evolutionists have talked about abrupt appearance.

    Accept for the moment the "poof hypothesis". How would you distinguish between that hypothesis, and the hypothesis that evolution occurred too fast to leave any traces in the fossil record? Evolution is a testable theory is it not?

    Even Periannan Senapathy, Ph.D. recognized the problems with the fossil record. He wrote a book in 1994 entitled, Independent Birth of Organisms.

    His thesis was that many distinct organisms arose independently due to many recombinations of the genetic material in one primordial pond hundreds of millions of years ago.

    Whatever you think of his theory, the point is, he accepted the fossil record at face value, and was trying to come up with a scientific explanation for it.

    Yes, he was even accused of being a Creationist.

     
  • At 12:43 PM, Blogger Doublee said…

    I have a question that I posed to myself as I was contemplating the ability of evolutionary emulations to demonstrate the plausibility of the theory of evolution.

    Can an evolutionary emulation actually demonstrate evolution as it occurs in nature?

    The evolutionary algorithms of which I am aware (admittedly, a very small number) always have an intelligent selection criterion that is tailored to the particular "computer organisms" in the algorithm. (I use "algorithms" to refer to very specialized anaologies of the evolutionary process, as opposed to true emulations.)

    In nature, there is no intelligent selection criterion that is tailored to the organisms in the environment. In order to accurately emulate what nature does, an actual evolutionary emulation would be limited to varying to the actual environmental variables, which would number in the hundreds I would think. I am thinking of variables such temperature variations, atmospheric composition, soil composition, oceanic composition, etc.

    To put it another way, the emulation could not contain a selection criterion that selects for the increased motility of a bacterium, for example.

    If you grant that a flagellum can evolve in the first place, then by writing an emulation that increases the number of flagellar bacterium in succeeding generations, the programmer is imposing on nature what he presumes will happen, and not necessarily what would actually happen.

    By placing his own selection criterion in the emulation, the programmer is stacking the deck. If that is the only way the programmer can get an evolutionary emulation to work, then he has not emulated nature and he has not demostrated the power of the evolutionary mechanism.

     
  • At 2:51 PM, Blogger Our Founding Truth said…

    OK, so you have no clue who the designer is, or if there was more than one designer, or when the design took place, or how long it took, or by what mechanisms, or with what materials, or if the designer was one-and-done or is still tinkering today.

    Apart from the Shroud of Turin proving beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Jesus Christ was crucified by the Romans in the first century, we still don't have the capability to make a negative from a scorched body;(not to mention the 7th Cen. Sudarium of Oviedo, which fits perfectly with the Shroud, debunking the late date theory)is not prophecy aligned with archeology, etc?

    Is not everything, besides or including, mathematics, or deductive logic, based on probability?

    The probability that one man could fulfill all 300 prophecies in the Old Testament is not a number (1 x 10 to the 350th power). The man's birth, tribe, lineage; crucifixion in Psalm 22, betrayed by a friend, for 40 pieces of silver, etc.

    And the prophecies can't be late dated because we have them today, as they existed in His time, carbon dated before Jesus was born!

    Jesus said he created the universe, and that He holds all the atoms together by His Word.

    Jesus is the Intelligent Designer.

     
  • At 12:00 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Amen, Brother! Speak it true! Praise be to the Designer and all his science-y stuff.

    Perhaps you would like to try this argument in court? We could get you a nice judge appointed by a Republican Evangelical and everything...

     
  • At 11:03 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Jesus is the Intelligent Designer.

    Ah, I see. So Jesus is the guy who designed HIV/AIDS , and malaria, and ebola, and polio, and syphilis, and HPV, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, and diabetes, and all the wonderful forms of cancer.

    Where do I send the thank you note?

     
  • At 3:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I am sure Our Founding Truth will tell you those came after the fall from grace.

    So thank mankind.

     
  • At 3:39 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    I am sure Our Founding Truth will tell you those came after the fall from grace.

    So thank mankind


    LOL! I though ID wasn't about religion? Now you say it's specifically about the Christian religion.

    It never fails. Let an IDiot talk for long enough and he'll always start preaching about Da Jeebus. Always.

     
  • At 4:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So you are that stupid that you can't even think for yourself.

    ID is not about Jesus.

    One person said Jesus was the designer.

    All I did was explain why Jesus was not the person to thank.

    IOW Thorton once again you prove that you are very closely related to chimps.

     
  • At 4:55 PM, Blogger Our Founding Truth said…

    blipey said...Perhaps you would like to try this argument in court?

    I'm sure The Lord's witnesses have been cross-examined like no other.

    Thorton said..Ah, I see. So Jesus is the guy who designed HIV/AIDS , and malaria, and ebola, and polio, and syphilis, and HPV, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, and diabetes, and all the wonderful forms of cancer.

    Joe is correct. Sin has corrupted us, and the creation.

    According to most experts, the Shroud of Turin is proof Jesus is God, for the image must be supernatural; thus, we still don't have the ability to make that image.
    http://www.shroudstory.com/faq-fakery.htm

    I don't see a problem with Jesus and Science; neither did Kepler, Newton, Locke, Pascal, Farraday, etc.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home