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

Monday, March 14, 2011

Jonathan Wells on Intelligent Design and Religion

-
"Intelligent Design is based on scientific evidence, not religious belief."- Jonathan Wells "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design"

Three for me, still zero for the lying evotards.

19 Comments:

  • At 5:26 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Father's [Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle." --Jonathan Wells, Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.

     
  • At 5:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What's your point?

    Are you finished with the other thread? I figured you had to cut away from your display of ignorance there. Is this thread going to be your attempt at a distraction from that?

     
  • At 5:47 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "I figured you had to cut away from your display of ignorance there. Is this thread going to be your attempt at a distraction from that?"

    Hmm - the least post I can see there is mine.

     
  • At 7:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! That is because you are retarded.

    The last post in that thread is from me. Only 200 comments plus the OP are displayed until you go to "post a comment" and then "newest".

    And you may as well leave that thread as you obviously are too much of an intellectual coward to deal with tiktaalik.

     
  • At 5:13 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "you obviously are too much of an intellectual coward to deal with tiktaalik."

    How does ID "deal with" tiktaalik?

     
  • At 6:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And OM is also too much of an intellectual coward to deal with tiktaalik.

     
  • At 8:52 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "And OM is also too much of an intellectual coward to deal with tiktaalik."

    What's to deal with? It does not support ID, end of.

     
  • At 11:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Tiktaalik doesn't support your position, end of.

     
  • At 4:53 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "Tiktaalik doesn't support your position, end of."

    It does.

    What is especially cool about Tiktaalik is that the researchers, Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins, predicted that they would discover something like Tiktaalik. These paleontologists made the prediction that such a transitional form must exist in order to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians. Even more, they predicted that such a species should exist in the late Devonian period, about 375 million years ago.

    So they spent several years digging through the earth on Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, because geological and paleontological evidence suggested that exposed strata there was from the late Devonian. They predicted that, according to evolutionary theory, at this time in history a creature should have existed that was morphologically transitional between fish and amphibians. They found Tiktaalik - a “fishopod,” beautifully transitional between fish and amphibians.


    What has ID ever done like that?

    Predicted something then gone out and found out one way or the other?

    Never times, that's how many.

     
  • At 5:04 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Tiktaalik is still being used as a successful prediction of something. I know it was supposed to be a successful prediction of universal common descent because it is A) Allegedly a transitional form between fish and tetrapods and B) It was found in the "correct" strata because allegedly no evidence of tetrapods before 385 million yeqars ago- plenty of fish though and plenty of evidence for tetrapods around 365 million years ago- Tiktaalik was allegedly found in strata about 375 million years old- Shubin said that is the strata he looked in because of the 365-385 range already bracketed by existing data.

    The thinking was tetrapods existed 365 mya and fish existed 385 mya, so the transition happened sometime in that 20 million years.

    Sounds very reasonable. And when they looked they found Tiktaalik and all was good.

    Then along comes another find that put the earliest tetrapods back to over 390 million years ago.

    Now had this find preceded Tiktaalik then Shubin et al. would not have been looking for the transitional after the transition had occurred- that doesn't make any sense. And that is why it is a failed prediction- the transition occurred some 25 million years before, Shubin et al., were looking in the wrong strata.

    That said Tiktaalik is still an interesting find, something tha no on else had ever found and it adds to our knowledge base of organisms that once existed. But that is all it does.

     
  • At 5:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And Tiktaalik doesn't say anything about a mechanism.

    loser.

     
  • At 5:28 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "And that is why it is a failed prediction- the transition occurred some 25 million years before, Shubin et al., were looking in the wrong strata."

    Joe, are you here admitting that the earth is verifiability without a doubt *at least* 365-385 million years old?

     
  • At 6:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Om:
    Joe, are you here admitting that the earth is verifiability without a doubt *at least* 365-385 million years old?

    Nope.

     
  • At 6:59 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "Nope."

    Then on what basis do you use data that does rely on such being true as evidence for your argument?

    Seems to me that some evidence can be used as long as it does not directly contradict the viewpoint you hold, regardless of any other evidence.

    So Joe can accept for the sake of making an argument that Devonian period was about 375 million years ago but can't commit to it definitively. As the rest of his case rely's on the slim possibility of almost everything we know about everything being wrong the level of doubt in dating is also correspondingly large and it would be illogical, in a world of illogic, to commit to such an age for the earth when there are far more unlikely claims being made.

    That's one way to build a case I suppose.

     
  • At 7:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Then on what basis do you use data that does rely on such being true as evidence for your argument?

    Their data, their argument, moron.

    Had you read Shubin's book they were looking for something in a specific strata for a reason- allegedly tetrapods didn't exist.

    New information says tetrapods existed well before Shubin, et al's find.

    I explained that to you and to Rich- you are both fucking ignorant assholes.

     
  • At 7:19 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "New information says tetrapods existed well before Shubin, et al's find."

    So the key here is what do these two data points taken together actually mean?

    Logically we know more from two finds then one?

    What is it that you think you've proven here Joe? Evolution make a prediction. It was verified after years of hard work.

    That's exactly what you wanted, right? You claimed that evolution does not make predictions? You now seem to be quibbling over trifling details in the theory of evolution itself and the evidence for it , which is odd as you claim there is no support for it in any case. No evidence for it in fact.

    "New information says tetrapods existed well before Shubin, et al's find."

    New information generated in the framework of non-ID evolution.

    Information which if you accept as true you also have to accept it's supporting data as true. Like an unassailable minimum age of the earth.

    Otherwise you surely cannot build a logical coherent framework that can be used for future prediction and discovery.

    Oh, that's right.

     
  • At 7:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Evolution make a prediction. It was verified after years of hard work.

    The "prediction" that wasn't!

    Are you stupid or what is your problem?

    Had Shubin known that tetrapods already existed he wouldn't have gone looking where he did.

    OM:
    New information generated in the framework of non-ID evolution.

    No- it wasn't generated by blind watchmaker evolution.

    And why do you keep equivocating with your use of the word "evolution"? Are you proud of being an ignorant asshole?

     
  • At 4:52 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    "Had Shubin known that tetrapods already existed he wouldn't have gone looking where he did."

    Again, a minor quibble. The point is that you can make predictions with evolution and then tests them.

    Unlike ID.

    "No- it wasn't generated by blind watchmaker evolution. "

    And you know this how, exactly?

    Were you there Joe, were you there? No, I don't think you were. So how "it" was generated is an unknown to you, but not to me.

     
  • At 6:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Had Shubin known that tetrapods already existed he wouldn't have gone looking where he did."

    OM:
    Again, a minor quibble.

    It's the whole fucking deal you moron.

    He was looking in the wrong place for the wrong thing!

    His "prediction" was fucked!

    OM:
    The point is that you can make predictions with evolution and then tests them.

    Again with the equivocation as if it means something.

    "No- it wasn't generated by blind watchmaker evolution. "

    OM:
    And you know this how, exactly?

    There wasn't anything in any peer-reviewed paper nor in his book about it.

    So just as Judge Jones sed ID wasn't in peer-review because ID wasn't in any peer-reviewed papers I can say the same for the blind watchmaker/ blind, undirected chemical processes.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home