Yes, Termites Are Designing Agencies
-
EvoTards never cease to amaze me because they are so freaking clueless. case in point- termites. Ogre MKV thinks that termite mounds are an example of blind, undirected processes constructing something- complexity without intelligence, is what he calls it.
First ID does not claim that complexity, mere complexity, requires intelligence. Second termites are designing agencies- ALL organisms have that distinction, meaning they are "intelligent" in the way ID uses the word-> termite mounds cannot be produced by nature, operating freely. When you see a termite mound you know that, at one time anyway, termites were active there.
The sad/ pathetic part is Ogre sez he has been engaging in this argument for 15 years and he still doesn't know anything about ID and is forced to lie and make shit up.
Typical...
EvoTards never cease to amaze me because they are so freaking clueless. case in point- termites. Ogre MKV thinks that termite mounds are an example of blind, undirected processes constructing something- complexity without intelligence, is what he calls it.
First ID does not claim that complexity, mere complexity, requires intelligence. Second termites are designing agencies- ALL organisms have that distinction, meaning they are "intelligent" in the way ID uses the word-> termite mounds cannot be produced by nature, operating freely. When you see a termite mound you know that, at one time anyway, termites were active there.
The sad/ pathetic part is Ogre sez he has been engaging in this argument for 15 years and he still doesn't know anything about ID and is forced to lie and make shit up.
Typical...
posted by Joe G @ 8:14 AM
74 Comments:
At 2:12 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Do you agree or disagree with this statement:
“organisms were supernaturally created and have remained unchanged since the time of their creation”
?
At 3:05 PM,
Joe G said…
I disagree with it. I don't know anyone, not even YECs, who agrees with that statement.
YECs say that today's organisms are variations of the originally created kinds, they accept speciation.
Did you have a point or are you still fishing for something?
At 3:27 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Then do you agree or disagree with this statement:
"organisms were supernaturally created"
?
I have a point. We'll get to it.
At 3:34 PM,
Joe G said…
I disagree but do not categorically deny the possibility. And science doesn't care, either way.
So that would be "disagree" (pending further clarification, but we will get to that)
At 3:35 PM,
Joe G said…
Is this going to be about "Of Pandas and People"?
If it is then just go fuck yourself now.
At 3:36 PM,
Joe G said…
And the topic- does your point have anything to do with the topic of this thread?
At 7:28 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"I disagree"
Then the "intelligent designer" of the life we know is in and of the universe?
I.E not "supernatural"?
At 7:36 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"Ya see, moron, when you fabricate the thing that was designed, you fabricate it by design, that is by the provided plan."
Where are the plans for the things termites build?
Who provided them?
Can you show me such a plan? If not, how do you know it exists at all?
At 8:29 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Then the "intelligent designer" of the life we know is in and of the universe?
In your position's scenario are the processes that gave rise to the universe in and of the universe?
IOW if natural pocesses only exist in nature they cannot account for its origin yet science says there was an origin.
OM:
I.E not "supernatural"?
You are bringing up shit that has been addressed:
here and here
But that does not matter. If the designer is supernatural science deals with it.
At 8:32 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Where are the plans for the things termites build?
Probably in the queen.
OM:
Who provided them?
I don't know.
OM:
Can you show me such a plan? If not, how do you know it exists at all?
What, exactly, are the options? Termites are born and just start doing shit and badda-bing, badda-boom an engineering marvel appears?
Are you fucking daft?
At 9:19 PM,
Ghostrider said…
Joe G said...
"Ya see, moron, when you fabricate the thing that was designed, you fabricate it by design, that is by the provided plan."
Joe, you told us you calculate the CSI in a cake by totaling up all the instructions it takes to make the cake. How do you calculate the CSI of a termite mound?
Can you please show us the calculations? What is the CSI of a termite mound?
At 4:59 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
"In your position's scenario are the processes that gave rise to the universe in and of the universe?"
It's rude to answer a question with another question. I thought this was a blog about ID?
"IOW if natural pocesses only exist in nature they cannot account for its origin yet science says there was an origin."
The same can be said for your purported designer. If your designer contains CSI then as CSI can only arise via intelligence the designer must have itself been designed. And that designer designer must itself have been designed.
Etc.
"But that does not matter. If the designer is supernatural science deals with it."
How does science go about investigating a supernatural designer?
And in any case you disagree that organisms were supernaturally created. Therefore the designer, by definition cannot be supernatural. So what does it matter to you how science "deals with" a supernatural designer?
You contract yourself within 10 posts, perhaps a new record.
At 5:01 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
So you don't know anything about the "plan" but are sure there is one.
"What, exactly, are the options? Termites are born and just start doing shit and badda-bing, badda-boom an engineering marvel appears?"
Another option is the designer is directly controlling each and every termite, just as it controls DNA replication (according to you).
Tell me Joe, how would ID go about scientifically confirming or disconfiming that?
After all, you claim the designer directly created termites. Why not directly control their actions too, in real time?
At 7:04 AM,
Joe G said…
Thortad:
Joe, you told us you calculate the CSI in a cake by totaling up all the instructions it takes to make the cake.
I said more thn that asshole.
I said it is about the ACTIONS- as in what does it tke to gt teh job done.
What is the CSI of a termite mound?
Don't know, don't care.
At 7:08 AM,
Joe G said…
"In your position's scenario are the processes that gave rise to the universe in and of the universe?"
OM:
It's rude to answer a question with another question. I thought this was a blog about ID?
So you aen't going t answer- how rude.
"IOW if natural pocesses only exist in nature they cannot account for its origin yet science says there was an origin."
The same can be said for your purported designer. If your designer contains CSI then as CSI can only arise via intelligence the designer must have itself been designed. And that designer designer must itself have been designed.
Except ID is not about the designer whereas your position is all about natural processes.
"But that does not matter. If the designer is supernatural science deals with it."
How does science go about investigating a supernatural designer?
Doesn't matter. ID isn't about the designer.
And in any case you disagree that organisms were supernaturally created. Therefore the designer, by definition cannot be supernatural. So what does it matter to you how science "deals with" a supernatural designer?
In any case you are serious reading issues. Do you really think I didn't notice tat you ignored most of my answer?
You contract yourself within 10 posts, perhaps a new record.
Just because you are stupid doesn't mean I "contracted" myself.
At 7:11 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
So you don't know anything about the "plan" but are sure there is one.
I know enough about engineering and building to know there is a plan.
OTOH you are an ignoramus.
Another option is the designer is directly controlling each and every termite, just as it controls DNA replication (according to you).
Nope, not according to me. I never said, tought nor implid the designer i directly controlling anything.
You are a liar.
After all, you claim the designer directly created termites.
Liar.
Why do you lie all the fucking time?
At 7:28 AM,
Joe G said…
"The implication you make is that there’s something about religion which is personal and upon which evidence doesn’t have any bearing. Now, as I scientist I care passionately about the truth. I think that the existence of a supreme being – a supernatural supreme being – is a scientific issue. Either there is a God or there isn’t. Either there are gods or there are no gods. That is a scientific issue. Yes, it’s a supremely important scientific question. If the universe was created by an intelligence, then we are looking at an entirely different kind of scientific theory than if the universe came into existence by natural means. If God or gods had something to do with the creation of life, then we’re looking at a totally different kind of biology."
Guess who said that? He is from Great Britain...
At 6:23 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
"I know enough about engineering and building to know there is a plan."
Engineering and building plans are known as blueprints. Pray tell have you ever seen a termite holding up a blueprint? Or seen a design committee in a termite mound talking about the new extension?
"Liar."
So, Joe, if the designer did not designer termites where did they come from? Did they evolve?
At 8:07 AM,
Joe G said…
I know enough about engineering and building to know there is a plan.
OM:
Engineering and building plans are known as blueprints.
That doesn't havbe anything to do with what said.
Try again.
Another option is the designer is directly controlling each and every termite, just as it controls DNA replication (according to you).
Nope, not according to me. I never said, tought nor implid the designer is directly controlling anything.
You hadbetter address that lie or fuck off.
After all, you claim the designer directly created termites.
Liar.
You had better address that lie also.
OM:
So, Joe, if the designer did not designer termites where did they come from? Did they evolve?
ID is not anti-evolution you fucking asshole.
At 1:39 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
What does ID have to say about the origin of the termite?
If ID is not "anti evolution" then the termite could/could not have evolved according to ID? Which is it?
Evolved or designed? Or other? Please tell!
At 2:15 PM,
Joe G said…
Om:
What does ID have to say about the origin of the termite?
Only that the blind watchmaker wasn't solely responsible.
OM:
If ID is not "anti evolution" then the termite could/could not have evolved according to ID? Which is it?
The questions would be "evolved from what?" and "How did it evolve?"- ID has a stake in the "how"- as in by design or via blind, undirected chemical processes.
I don't know why you think your ignorance is meaningful discourse. If you don't understand what ID claims then perhaps you should shut the fuck up.
Now I know you are going to try to say that I don't know about the theory of evolution but I will point out right now that you cannot support such a claim.
At 2:18 PM,
Joe G said…
Strange how OM has completely avoided the topic of the thread.
Go figure...
At 4:46 PM,
CBD said…
Joe
"Only that the blind watchmaker wasn't solely responsible."
So in essence ID has nothing to say about the origin of the termite.
" ID has a stake in the "how"- as in by design or via blind, undirected chemical processes."
ID's "stake" appears to be to say that "blind watchmaker wasn't solely responsible" and nothing else then. Very informative.
"If you don't understand what ID claims then perhaps you should shut the fuck up."
I know what ID "claims". You just said so. It's "the blind watchmaker wasn't solely responsible for the origin of the termite". From which we can infer the "Intelligent Designer" had a hand.
But as you say ID is not about "the designer" then that's that! You have just proven the uselessness of ID as a tool to investigate "design".
Termites are designed.
Can't investigate the designer however.
Color me underwhelmed.
At 4:55 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
So in essence ID has nothing to say about the origin of the termite.
I am not sure what you mean.
OM:
ID's "stake" appears to be to say that "blind watchmaker wasn't solely responsible" and nothing else then.
No, and design best explains their existence.
OM:
I know what ID "claims".
No you don't.
OM:
But as you say ID is not about "the designer" then that's that!
Except that isn't that. There is still much more to do- as dawkins said we are looking at a totally different biology.
And even though ID isn't about the designer someone else can pick up that investigation- ID does not stop anyone from doing that.
Man are you fucking ignorant...
At 4:59 PM,
Joe G said…
what does ID claim
At 5:58 PM,
Joe G said…
Stonehenge is designed.
Can't investigate the designer(s) however.
OMTard logic, archaeology is useless.
At 6:17 PM,
Joe G said…
Does the theory of evolution predict the existence of termites?
At 8:07 PM,
CBD said…
Joe
"No, and design best explains their existence."
Give me a single reason why "design" best explains the existence of the termite, one that is only relevant to the termite.
Ya see, IOW "design" explains everything and everything. So it in fact explains nothing. It explains the termite. It explains the cow. From the smallest to the lowest it explains it.
Explain to me what ID has to say about the termite other then "it was designed" Joe.
At 8:14 PM,
CBD said…
Joe
"Stonehenge is designed.
Can't investigate the designer(s) however."
Yet archeology is all about telling us about the people who left the artifacts. What's the point of it otherwise, in the main? If ID cannot do that, and that's your main analogy they I think you've just shot yourself in the foot.
ID isn't about the designer. Therefore ID is a version of archeology where you find an artifact and put it on a shelf called "designed" and move on.
So what is ID about? Oh, that's right, the termite "was designed". A shelf label.
"Does the theory of evolution predict the existence of termites?"
Does ID? Does ID predict *anything* about termites one way or the other?
Perhaps "as we examine termites we'll find that things are more complex then them seem on the surface?"
That's always a good one.
And no, Joe, to my knowledge the theory of evolution does not predict the existence of termites. But I'm sure it can tell us much about them and how they will respond in certain situations to certain pressures.
Can ID do that Joe? Give it a go.
At 8:24 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Yet archeology is all about telling us about the people who left the artifacts.
Yeah, by studying the artifacts and any other remains- graves, tombs, bones. Find and study the artifacts to piece together the puzzle.
OM:
What's the point of it otherwise, in the main?
Well you can study past technology- some of those cultures appear to be capable of things that we are not.
OM:
If ID cannot do that, and that's your main analogy they I think you've just shot yourself in the foot.
First you have to find and study the artifacts- that is what ID is all about.
Nothing in ID prevents anyone from looking into the designer(s). But just as the theory of evolution is held separate from the origin of life- even though as Richard Dawkins states it is a totally different biology- the designer(s) are held separate from ID because we don't need to know who before we determine design from not.
OM:
And no, Joe, to my knowledge the theory of evolution does not predict the existence of termites. But I'm sure it can tell us much about them and how they will respond in certain situations to certain pressures.
Except the theory of evolution doesn't have anything to do with how they will respond. You may as well study termites under the framework of baraminology- no difference.
At 8:27 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Give me a single reason why "design" best explains the existence of the termite, one that is only relevant to the termite.
Their engineering accomplishments. What do you have- "it just happened"?
OM:
Ya see, IOW "design" explains everything and everything.
Nope- design doesn't explain everything. The blind watchmaker is still at play.
At 8:47 PM,
Joe G said…
Also archaeology tells us more about HOW some people lived...
At 6:31 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"Yeah, by studying the artifacts and any other remains- graves, tombs, bones. Find and study the artifacts to piece together the puzzle. "
Exactly. Find the artifacts and discover what can be determined about their makers.
Exactly what ID cannot do, according to you.
"Well you can study past technology- some of those cultures appear to be capable of things that we are not."
Exactly. We study their artifacts and it tells us about their culture. Exactly what cannot be done for ID!
"First you have to find and study the artifacts- that is what ID is all about."
You've had several decades, and truth be told, several thousands years already. If you've discovered zero so far...
"Nothing in ID prevents anyone from looking into the designer(s)"
Nor does it prevent people looking into invisible pink unicorns. Both avenues are equally productive.
" But just as the theory of evolution is held separate from the origin of life- even though as Richard Dawkins states it is a totally different biology- the designer(s) are held separate from ID because we don't need to know who before we determine design from not."
And yet we know enougth about the origin of life to know that it was likely a bush and not a tree, yet even a bush has a single connection to the ground.
What has ID told us about the origin of life?
Absolutely nothing.
"Except the theory of evolution doesn't have anything to do with how they will respond. You may as well study termites under the framework of baraminology- no difference."
No difference to a YEC like you perhaps, but all the difference in the world to people who study such.
For example, in most ecosystems there is an observable balance between the growth of plants and the feeding of termites. Such can be modeled as part of an evolutionary "arms race" model for example.
Defence by plants from termites is typically achieved by secreting anti-feedant chemicals (such as oils, resins, and lignins) into the woody cell walls. This reduces the ability of termites to efficiently digest the cellulose.
But hey, I guess you are right! All that can simply be explained as "it was designed" and it can be left at that while the real scientists get on with the real work.
Recent DNA evidence has supported the hypothesis, originally based on morphology, that termites are most closely related to the wood-eating cockroaches (genus Cryptocercus), to which the singular and very primitive Mastotermes darwiniensis shows some telltale similarities.
What does the ID "hypothesis" have to say about the origin of the termite? I guess finding them related to cockroaches is simply "common design" and the "reuse of existing parts".
Funny how ID only knows all that after actual real scientists get out there and do the hard work.
And it's funny how "common design" can explain everything from the ant to the elephant but never makes any predictions that can be tested to determine if "common design" really means anything that can differentiate it from "evolution".
At 8:11 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Find the artifacts and discover what can be determined about their makers.
And that is ID. Find the artifacts and study them to find out what we can discover.
OM:
Exactly what ID cannot do, according to you.
You are a lying moron. It isn't that ID cannot do that it is that ID isn't about that- just as the theory of evolution isn't about the origin of life- dipshit.
OM:
You've had several decades, and truth be told, several thousands years already. If you've discovered zero so far...
Liar- we have discovered plenty so far.
OTOH your position still has nothing- IOW you are projecting.
Then OM gets reality handed to him and he throws a hissy fit:
"Nothing in ID prevents anyone from looking into the designer(s)"
OM:
Nor does it prevent people looking into invisible pink unicorns. Both avenues are equally productive.
And more productive than your position!
OM:
And yet we know enougth about the origin of life to know that it was likely a bush and not a tree, yet even a bush has a single connection to the ground.
Your position has nothing on the OoL. Nothing- a big fat zero.
OM:
What has ID told us about the origin of life?
That it isn't reducible to matter, energy, chanceand necessity- meaning we are looking at a totally different kind of biology.
Which is obviously something you cannot understand.
"Except the theory of evolution doesn't have anything to do with how they will respond. You may as well study termites under the framework of baraminology- no difference."
OM:
No difference to a YEC like you perhaps, but all the difference in the world to people who study such.
Except I am not a YEC and the the ToE isn't of any help with anything- it is fruitless.
OM:
For example, in most ecosystems there is an observable balance between the growth of plants and the feeding of termites. Such can be modeled as part of an evolutionary "arms race" model for example.
Both ID and baraminology are OK with any alleged "arms race" - geez you are ignorant.
OM:
But hey, I guess you are right! All that can simply be explained as "it was designed" and it can be left at that while the real scientists get on with the real work.
More ignorance- the design inference doesn't leave it at the design inference- there is still plenty of work to be done to understand this totally different type of biology.
OM:
Recent DNA evidence has supported the hypothesis, originally based on morphology, that termites are most closely related to the wood-eating cockroaches (genus Cryptocercus), to which the singular and very primitive Mastotermes darwiniensis shows some telltale similarities.
Except there isn't any DNA evidence that demonstrates changes in the DNA can account for the changes required to go from wood-eating cockroaches to termites- no way to test the claim. Also still nothing about the mechanism- as in did blind, undirected chemical processes do it or was it designed to evolve.
OM:
Funny how ID only knows all that after actual real scientists get out there and do the hard work.
What work?
OM:
And it's funny how "common design" can explain everything from the ant to the elephant but never makes any predictions that can be tested to determine if "common design" really means anything that can differentiate it from "evolution".
Again "evolutio" isn't being debated you ignorant fuck- grow up.
Common design can be observed and experienced in the real world.
And your postion doesn't have any pedictions.
At 8:32 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
"Your position has nothing on the OoL. Nothing- a big fat zero."
http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/nai/ool-www/program/
Care to link to something 0.0001% as detailed on the ID side of things?
When you've watched all that, in a day or two, why don't we carry on the conversation?
At 8:34 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
"Both ID and baraminology are OK with any alleged "arms race" - geez you are ignorant. "
Is there anything that ID and baraminology are not alright with that evolution is? As a side note is there anything that separates ID and baraminology?
I.E is there a way we can tell the difference between them?
If not...
At 8:37 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"Here is your chance- produce a testable hypothesis "
For what, exactly?
"along with positive (supporting) evidence"
What, like all that positive evidence for ID? Funny how there is none yet you believe in ID no matter what but when positive evidence from the other side comes in the millions of pages it's "not good enough".
Sure you did not decide what side you were on before you saw the evidence Joe?
At 8:43 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
"Common design can be observed and experienced in the real world."
Except what we see in the "real world" of, e.g. car design, contradicts your point.
We do not see the same pattern of a nested hierarchy in car design that we see in the tree of life.
We see a pattern distinctly different and you know it.
When the CD player was invented it was not only available to a particular "species" of car and it's descendants, it became available to all cars at once.
Exactly what we don't see in the natural world. And exactly what we'd expect to see if the "designer" is evolution.
And it also fatally undermines your idea of inference from observed instances of design extrapolated to a "designer", unless of course your "designer" is exactly emulating what evolution would have done anyway.
In which case Occam's razor cuts it away in any case.
At 9:22 AM,
Joe G said…
"Here is your chance- produce a testable hypothesis "
OM:
For what, exactly?
For your position you coward.
"along with positive (supporting) evidence"
OM:
What, like all that positive evidence for ID?
You choke on the positive evidence for ID.
OM:
Sure you did not decide what side you were on before you saw the evidence Joe?
I was an evolutionist until I started looking closely at the evidence- so was Anthony Flew.
At 9:24 AM,
Joe G said…
Om:
Except what we see in the "real world" of, e.g. car design, contradicts your point.
No, it doesn't- it supports my case- we see common design in most cars.
OM:
We do not see the same pattern of a nested hierarchy in car design that we see in the tree of life.
There isn't any tree of life you moron and we do not see a nested hierarchy with the bulk of the biomass.
OM:
And it also fatally undermines your idea of inference from observed instances of design extrapolated to a "designer", unless of course your "designer" is exactly emulating what evolution would have done anyway.
You are a fucking equivocating asshole. "Evolution" isn't being debated and if you could support your position then ID would be a non-starter.
At 9:27 AM,
Joe G said…
"Your position has nothing on the OoL. Nothing- a big fat zero."
OM:
http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/nai/ool-www/program/
Nothing there that supports the claim that living organisms arose from non-living matter via blind, undirected chemical processes.
At 9:28 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
When you've watched all that, in a day or two, why don't we carry on the conversation?
Already watched it.
At 10:19 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"No, it doesn't- it supports my case- we see common design in most cars. "
What's the difference between common design and common descent? How can we tell the difference between the two?
"There isn't any tree of life you moron and we do not see a nested hierarchy with the bulk of the biomass."
Bill Dembski, has stated that, "intelligent design is compatible with ... the most far-ranging evolution (e.g., God seamlessly melding all organisms together into one great tree of life)" (Dembski W.A., "Intelligent Design," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1999, pp.109-110).
At 10:22 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"Already watched it."
And does it support ID? If so, how?
At 10:24 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Mike Behe accepts "the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor)" (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box," Free Press: New York NY, 1996, pp.5-6).
Seems your version of ID is way out on the fringes.
At 11:19 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
What's the difference between common design and common descent?
Do you mean Universal Common Descent? Or common descent as in I am the offspring of my parents?
OM:
How can we tell the difference between the two?
If you mean between common design and universal common descent, well first would be which is testable and which relies solely on eons of time.
Also, as I have been telling you time and again you fucking ignorant ass- ID is OK with UCD it argues against the mechanism- and now you post exactly tat as if taht refutes something I have said.
I posted the following back in 2006:
Biological evolution- what is being debated?- now some of the links don't work and again in 2009
Obviously you think your ignorance means something- strange.
And again this has nothing to do with termites being designing agencies.
PS just because ID is OK with UCD doesn't automatically mean there is evidence for it.
At 11:25 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
And does it support ID?
Well, asshole, part of the design inference is to eliminate chance and necessity- ie your position- ya, that's right you are given the first chances to make your case and your failure to do so is part of the design inference.
Then we see if it matches the criteria- so if we have both- the elimintion of your sorry-ass position and also measure up to the criteria, we infer design.
At 11:27 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Seems your version of ID is way out on the fringes.
It is right there with Johnson, Wells, Dembski, Nelson et al.
At 12:44 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"the elimintion of your sorry-ass position"
If there is, as you keep saying, no evidence for my position in the first place then why go through the charade of eliminating it at all?
At 12:47 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"If you mean between common design and universal common descent, well first would be which is testable and which relies solely on eons of time."
No, Joe, you know exactly what I mean. If common descent and common design cannot be differentiated by predictions unique to each viewpoint then we can invent any other number of things, none of which can also be differentiated from common descent or design either, and claim that they are support for ID.
Common eesign.
Common fesign.
Common gesign.
Common hesign.
There I've just increased the support for ID several times over!
At 12:47 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"PS just because ID is OK with UCD doesn't automatically mean there is evidence for it. "
Better ask Dembski and Behe why they, in the main, accept it then.
At 1:29 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Better ask Dembski and Behe why they, in the main, accept it then.
Dembski doesn't, that is why he responded to me the way he did (targeted searches)- he thinks I was trying to support front-loaded evolution.
And Behe accepts it because of the similarities that common design explains.
At 1:31 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
If there is, as you keep saying, no evidence for my position in the first place then why go through the charade of eliminating it at all?
You're just plain ole stupid, aren't you?
You have to follow the process and that is why I can say your position doesn't have any positive evidence.
If it did you would just post it.
At 1:32 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
If common descent and common design cannot be differentiated by predictions unique to each viewpoint then we can invent any other number of things, none of which can also be differentiated from common descent or design either, and claim that they are support for ID.
Universal Common Descent cannot be tested as it relies solely on eons of time and magical mystery mutations.
At 5:11 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"Universal Common Descent cannot be tested "
And common design can be tested how exactly?
"Dembski doesn't, that is why he responded to me the way he did (targeted searches)- he thinks I was trying to support front-loaded evolution.
And Behe accepts it because of the similarities that common design explains."
No, Joe, Behe accepts common descent. Not common design.
At 6:51 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
And common design can be tested how exactly?
Observations and experiences.
And Behe accepts it because of the similarities that common design explains.
OM:
No, Joe, Behe accepts common descent. Not common design.
You are fucking retarded. The "evidence" for common descent is the SAME as for common design- SIMILARITIES.
At 8:51 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"You are fucking retarded. The "evidence" for common descent is the SAME as for common design- SIMILARITIES."
Then why have common descent and common design at all if there is no difference between the two whatsoever?
Seems to me you've invented "common design" so you can claim that the evidence for "common descent" supports ID.
And I've already explained why "common design" is not seen in the tree of life. Unlike designing a car you can only use what has already evolved in your particular lineage.
Whereas "common design" allows you to use any component in any creature once you've invented it once. And we simply don't see that.
Hence the evidence supports "common descent" and does not support "common design".
Unless of course you can give me an example of a feature that appeared once and then without any delay appeared in other unrelated and geographically distant creatures immediately with no precursors?
That would *prove* common design is real. Can you provide such an example?
At 11:32 AM,
Joe G said…
Om:
Then why have common descent and common design at all if there is no difference between the two whatsoever?
I didn't say there isn't any difference. But common dsign was before universal common descent and your sorry asses stole the evidence and used it for your own.
OM:
Seems to me you've invented "common design" so you can claim that the evidence for "common descent" supports ID.
You are one ignorant wanker- common design came first and evidence for universal common descent is not evidence for any mechanism- Behe said that many times also.
OM:
And I've already explained why "common design" is not seen in the tree of life.
There isn't any evidence for a tree of life and Linne- the father of taxonomy- was a creationist.
Again your sorry ass position stole that from creationists you ignorant fuck. All you did was replace archetype with common ancestor.
OM:
Unlike designing a car you can only use what has already evolved in your particular lineage.
Evolved from what and how? What is the evidence any structure can evolve? Shit your position can't explain cellular differentiation- ID can.
At 4:48 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"Shit your position can't explain cellular differentiation- ID can."
Can it? Please do tell....
At 4:51 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"Evolved from what and how? What is the evidence any structure can evolve? "
ID is not anti-evolution remember?
Y evolved from it's ancestor X.
What is the evidence that any structure can evolve? ID is not anti-evolution remember? If ID is not anti-evolution then logically things can evolve. Like "structures".
Otherwise what does it mean when you said ID is not anti-evolution?
At 5:10 PM,
Joe G said…
"Evolved from what and how? What is the evidence any structure can evolve? "
OM:
ID is not anti-evolution remember?
Answer the questions asshole.
OM:
What is the evidence that any structure can evolve? ID is not anti-evolution remember? If ID is not anti-evolution then logically things can evolve.
Again, asshole, "evolution" can mean many different things. YEC isn't anti-evolution you dumbass.
What the fuck is wrong with you? How many times do I have to explain it to you?
OM:
Otherwise what does it mean when you said ID is not anti-evolution?
I have explained that to you many, many times. I have linked to that explanation many, many times.
Why are you such a wanker?
At 5:11 PM,
Joe G said…
"Shit your position can't explain cellular differentiation- ID can."
OM:
Can it? Please do tell....
Programming.
At 5:21 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"Programming."
That's not an explanation.
It explains exactly nothing.
At 5:33 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"Programming" as an explanation for cellular differentiation is the equivalent to "design" for an explanation to life.
Satisfying to the incurious but nobody else.
And you claim that ID is science?
At 6:21 PM,
Joe G said…
"Programming."
OM:
That's not an explanation.
It is a better and more accurate explanation than your position's "it just happened".
OM:
"Programming" as an explanation for cellular differentiation is the equivalent to "design" for an explanation to life.
As Dawkins said- it is a totally different type of biology- so it says quite a bit.
And it also tells us how to proceed with the investigation- just as saying Stonehenge was designed was an impetus for more research.
At 6:28 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Satisfying to the incurious but nobody else.
And you claim that ID is science?
As scientific as saying Stonehenge was designed. As scientific as forensic science.
Only a scientifically illiterate imbecile would think that it stops at the word "programming"- there is a ton of work to figure out the programming you freak. And a ton of work on the totally different type of biology.
At 6:47 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"Programming."
What language? Did they use a compiler?
At 7:02 PM,
Joe G said…
The ribosome is a genetic compiler
At 7:12 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
That's just great.
Now, what number base does the "programming language" work in?
Hint. It's a trick question.
At 7:22 PM,
Joe G said…
Termites, designing agencies- that is the topic.
At 4:50 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"Termites, designing agencies- that is the topic."
Seems to me you are happy to go OT until something comes up that you can't deal with, then OT is an excuse to delete posts.
At 7:03 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Seems to me you are happy to go OT until something comes up that you can't deal with,
Example please.
So far you have taken every thread off-topic because you can't stand to be proven wrong, which happens daily to you here.
At 9:44 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
"Example please."
What number base does the "programming language" work in?
If you know that it has a compiler then knowing what base it works to would be a trivial thing.
At 9:54 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Seems to me you are happy to go OT until something comes up that you can't deal with,
Example please.
Still waiting....
Post a Comment
<< Home