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

Thursday, May 05, 2011

Intelligent Design Evolution vs Darwinian and neo-Darwinian Evolution

-
I thought this was obvious but here goes- IDE vs DE/ NDE-

ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):

1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

Cause and effect relationships- the processes we observe in the present is the key to the past.

Therefor if it was ever demonstrated that living organisms can be reduced to chemistry and physics (as OgreMKV puts it) Intelligent Design would be falsified:

In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct
experimental rebuttal
. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex
system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.

How about Professor Coyne’s concern that, if one system were shown to be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I think the objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design.”- Dr Michael Behe
And living organisms are the top of the IC mountain.

We observe genetic accidents breaking things not constructing useful, functional, multi-part systems.

But anyway how can we test DE/ NDE?

1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

105 Comments:

  • At 4:23 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an design?

    2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via design?

    3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via design?

    We know that natural forces can increase information and where available at that time. We know of no capable 'designers' at that time. Occam's razor: Design looses.

     
  • At 4:49 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an design?

    2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via design?

    3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via design?


    I have already told you how we test for design.

    RichTard:
    We know that natural forces can increase information and where available at that time.

    Liar.

    Also natural forces only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its orgin, which science has shown it had.

    RichTard:
    We know of no capable 'designers' at that time.

    If we knew the designer then we wouldn't have a design inference. Howevber the evidence for design says there was at least one.

    Occam's razor favors ONE design over MULTIPLE cosmic collisions, MULTIPLE atomic accidents and MULTIPLE just-so coincidences.

    Thanks fer playin'...

     
  • At 4:50 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Typical cowardly evotard avoids the questions pertaining to its position.

    Go figure...

     
  • At 5:17 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    " have already told you how we test for design."

    And no-one of concequence agrees with you.

    "Also natural forces only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its orgin, which science has shown it had."

    Oh, so you mean to ask, "who created the universe"? Try to be honest, we know you find it hard.

     
  • At 5:28 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "I have already told you how we test for design."And no-one of concequence agrees with you.

    Yet no-one (your alleged people of consequence) can provide any reasoning that I am wrong. And they (your alleged people of consequence) cannot provide any way to test their position.

    "Also natural forces only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its orgin, which science has shown it had."

    RichTard:
    Oh, so you mean to ask, "who created the universe"?

    Nope. I was just demonstrating YOUR use of "natural forces" was bogus.

    Try to follow along. I know it is difficult for a person of your diminished mental capacity and obvious intellectual cowardice to do so but you could at least try.

     
  • At 5:38 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural

    "existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial): a natural bridge."

    Joe / Jim / John the Muslim creationist begins his semantic circle jerk once more.

     
  • At 5:42 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Typical cowardly evotard avoids the questions pertaining to its position.

    Go figure...

     
  • At 5:44 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Same old 'assert rubbish' Joe / Jim / John the Muslim creationist gets his arse handed to him and doesn't even realise. It's a crappy narrative trick, but I still do it better than you. ;-)

     
  • At 5:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard-

    The definition proved my point- natural forces cannot accout for the origin of nature and therefor didn't put the information here.

    Natural forces may be able t move information around but that is about it.

     
  • At 5:56 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "The definition proved my point- natural forces cannot accout for the origin of nature and therefor didn't put the information here.

    Natural forces may be able t move information around but that is about it."

    Oh, so you mean to ask, "who created the universe"? Try to be honest, we know you find it hard.

     
  • At 6:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Oh, so you mean to ask, "who created the universe"?

    No. I asked the three questions I wanted to and you have avoided them, again, which is usual for an internet coward.

     
  • At 6:12 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "No. I asked the three questions I wanted to and you have avoided them, again, which is usual for an internet coward."

    Oh no, Joe. I've adressed them and you've move the goalposts. You just have a hard time admitting that.

    And sunshine, you're the biggest coward of them all. Fancy being scared of BLipey!

     
  • At 6:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No. I asked the three questions I wanted to and you have avoided them, again, which is usual for an internet coward."

    Richtard:
    Oh no, Joe. I've adressed them and you've move the goalposts.

    You "addressed" them with a bald assertion/ lie. IOW you cowardly avoided them.

     
  • At 6:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    1- How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum evolved in a population that never had one via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    2- How can we test the premise that fish evolved into land animals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

    3- How can we test the premise that reptiles evolved into mammals via an accumulation of genetic accidents?


    And RichTard the coward "addressed" that by baldly asserting:
    We know that natural forces can increase information and where available at that time.

    And that doesn't even address the questions!

    You are STILL a liar and a loser.

     
  • At 6:36 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:]
    And sunshine, you're the biggest coward of them all.

    Just tell me where you live an we will see about that.

    Fancy being scared of BLipey!

    Muskrat blipey muskrat Rich.

    Rich says to blipey come and be my bitch

    and they shimmy, blipey's so skinny.


    Yeah Rich getting AIDS from kicking an infected clown's ass is not my way of dying.

     
  • At 6:55 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Joe G said...

    Rich Hughes: And sunshine, you're the biggest coward of them all.

    Just tell me where you live an we will see about that.


    What are you going to do if you find out where he lives Joe? Make sure you avoid the area like the plague so you don't accidentally meet up and start you crying?

     
  • At 7:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    tardtard:
    What are you going to do if you find out where he lives Joe?

    I will show you if he provides it.

    Also if I am so scared of blipey was does it refuse to comply with my instructions for a meet-up?

    Strange, that...

     
  • At 7:04 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Joe G said...

    tardtard:
    What are you going to do if you find out where he lives Joe?

    I will show you if he provides it.


    Why don't you show me now internet tough guy?

     
  • At 7:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    tardtard:
    Why don't you show me now internet tough guy?

    I can't because you are too much of a coward to face me. Internet or not you are liar and a coward.

     
  • At 8:19 PM, Blogger The whole truth said…

    Behe said:

    "To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex
    system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven."

    Hmm, you (Joe-boi) constantly argue that it's the "mechanism" that counts when it comes to evolution. You've said that when things evolve it's because of the designed-in or directed ability to evolve.

    So, even if someone were to show that a bacterium can evolve a flagellum in a lab, you and the other ID-tards would just claim that the ability to do so was front loaded or directed by a designer.

    It wouldn't matter what is shown in a lab, or otherwise, because you and your fellow IDiots would still claim that a designer (God) did it.

    You also claim that ID pertains to origins, and you say that the universe had a beginning. How did the universe begin Joe-boi? Was it created by a creator/designer? How did life begin? Was it created by a creator/designer? If so, who or what is or was that creator/designer, and exactly how do you know?

    By the way, why aren't you over on UD fighting to the death to keep religion out of ID?????? That site is absolutely overflowing with religious crap and more is added every day. Are you afraid to fight to the death for your alleged standards Joe-boi? You're the one who said you'll fight to the death to keep religion out of ID. Let's see you do it.

     
  • At 8:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Nice try you ignorant coward.

    the whole tard:
    So, even if someone were to show that a bacterium can evolve a flagellum in a lab, you and the other ID-tards would just claim that the ability to do so was front loaded or directed by a designer.

    That would depend on how it happened. If it happened piece by piece generation after generation I would say that would be evidence for front-loading as there is no way blind, undirected processes could do something like that.

    If it took hundreds of thousands of generations with starts and stops and no general direction, then you would win.

    the whole tard:
    You also claim that ID pertains to origins, and you say that the universe had a beginning.

    Just as the Creationists predicted!

    the whole tard:
    How did the universe begin Joe-boi? Was it created by a creator/designer? How did life begin? Was it created by a creator/designer? If so, who or what is or was that creator/designer, and exactly how do you know?

    Don't know- tat is what science is for you ignorant asshole- to help us try to answer those questions.

    However you need not worry about ID- just focus on your lame-ass position for it is the failure of your position that has allowed ID to stick around.

    the whole tard:
    By the way, why aren't you over on UD fighting to the death to keep religion out of ID??????

    You are confused. There isn't any religion in ID so there isn't anything to fight to keep out.

    the whole tard:
    That site is absolutely overflowing with religious crap and more is added every day.

    That is their personal stuff. And I am glad it bothers you.

    But anyway don't come back until you can answer the three questions I posted in the OP.

     
  • At 2:04 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    I can be found at 550 Main St in Keene, NH

     
  • At 4:55 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Then you already know.

     
  • At 11:53 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    It is an important question to ask how test for whether an example of evolution occurred by random accident or intelligence.
    Before I give my two cents on that, I would like to first contest Ogre's stumbling attempt at "science" by identifying an example of evolution and simply ASSuming random luck is the cause.

     
  • At 12:06 AM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    I should also add that when Dr Behe said that if a microbe developed a flagellum it would disprove his theory - he was talking about IC, not ID. Such an example of evolution is exactly what ID predicts. IC would be disproven only if every step in the flagella development had some functional benefit to the organism.
    Irreducible complexity as a debunking of random accident has both merit and flaws. Darwin said it would falsify his theory, but Darwin was an idiot who got everything wrong, including this. IC gives far too much credit to the selection filter. A bacteria with half a flagellum could survive. More importantly, phenotypes appear fully formed. The 40 genetic changes necessary would have been all in place before a master gene activated them. All physical traits appear fully formed by this method.

     
  • At 12:23 AM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Now as to how to differentiate between intelligent evolution and random mess evolution: I didnt hear an answer from Richard Hughes, but Joe G gave an answer.
    His answer was good but I will elaborate. If the flagella appear suddenly (the likeliest scenario based on other known examples of evolution) then intelligent evolution is proven. If it gradually appears but always steadily advancing in the right direction, then random accident & selection is disproven.
    However, if it appears only after quadrillions of unuseful and messy appendages form in odd places, with each of these misfits becoming extinct due to the mutation, then random accident and selection becomes apparent.
    Guess which scenario we always see?

     
  • At 3:50 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Hi Joe G's sock-puppet. What was Joe / Jim / John's (Your) answer?

    If the designer hung around for billions of years, and we still see evolution happening, why can't we see teh designer today?

     
  • At 7:10 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Hi Richard. Joe G's anbwer was a reply to whole truth. He said: "That would depend on how it happened. If it happened piece by piece generation after generation I would say that would be evidence for front-loading as there is no way blind, undirected processes could do something like that.

    If it took hundreds of thousands of generations with starts and stops and no general direction, then you would win".

    I agree. It is a metter of HOW the evolution happened. It NEVER happens the way Darwin thought it would BTW.

     
  • At 7:37 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Richard had another question: "If the designer hung around for billions of years, and we still see evolution happening, why can't we see teh designer today?"

    Who said it was one designer rather than multitudes of intelligent agents? ID does not posit the "who" question on intelligent agency, precisely because their is no evidence leading us beyond the certainty of intelligent cause.

    Moreover, how do you know you dont see the intelligent agents? What if organisms themselves are their own intelligent agents, if only subconsciously? You do see organisms.

    Design inference is not contingent upon knowing who the intelligent agent is. If detectives deduce a murder took place they do not consider it accidental death until they find a suspect. If SETI detects a clearly encoded signal from outer space, they wont disregard it because they havent seen the intelligence behind it.

    Intelligence isnt becessarily visible or even personified. We cant see the other forces of nature (yet they exist) so why would we see this one? Unfortunately for the Darwinists, you cant go to the store and order a pound of intelligence.

     
  • At 8:15 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Now a question for you, Rich. You say "We know that natural forces can increase information and where available at that time."

    What exactly did you mean?

    Please tell me you dont buy into the ridiculous notion that intelligence can be created accidentally? Intelligence and random accident are mutually exclusive concepts. It absolutely canNOT happen, let alone it being something that we "know" happened.

    If that isnt what you meant, let me know. Natural forces do increase information, but only by intelligence, a basic law of nature. Sorry, this is one thing that can not happen by accident no matter how much you think you can beat impossible odds.

     
  • At 10:21 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Rich Hughes and Joe G have been asking each other how to test evolution that occured in the distant past, to determine whether it happened by luck or by intelligent cause. To be sure it is much harder to run a test on something that happened millions of years ago than it is to test modern day observations.

    However many such tests have been done. Genetics are comprised of encoded information, and as such changes to the code can be evaluated mathematically.

    Mathematicians have evaluated the odds of accomplishing many different genomic leaps by random luck. In every case I have heard about, random chaos has been deemed statistically impossible as a cause.

    Darwinists claim that these tests are not valid, of course. They want selection taken into account much to the laughter of the mathematicians, who repeatedly tell Darwinists their selection concept does nothing.

    Mathematicians will calculate both gradualism and sudden leaps. They also give reliable margins of error. Having been both a Biology major and a Math major, I find these tests to be quite valid.

     
  • At 10:47 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Please tell me you dint buy into the ridiculous notion that intelligence can be created accidentally? Intelligence and random accident are mutually exclusive concepts. It absolutely canNOT happen, let alone it being something that we "know" happened."

    That's a big, unanchored assertion, you're carrying there.

    "ID does not posit the "who" question on intelligent agency, precisely because their is no evidence leading us beyond the certainty of intelligent cause."


    Wrong - ID doesn't mention the designer (in public) because they want to teach creationism but aren't allowed to. So Ironically, their message has evolved.

    And that final math blurt (with no actual math - just like CSI calculations), simply doesn't fly. We can look at actual examples (Lenski) or the math if you want. Remember, evolution is stepwise, not ex nihilo.

    Google "after the bar closes" and join the discussion there. Its a much better, more diverse and less moderated forum than here, with instant comment promotion.

     
  • At 11:03 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    ID doesn't mention the designer (in public) because they want to teach creationism but aren't allowed to.

    Liar.

    We can look at actual examples (Lenski) or the math if you want.

    Lenski? Lenski is pretty much proving your position doesn't have anything.

    Why do you even bring him up?

     
  • At 11:17 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing-link-cd.html

    See the the little weasels change "creationism" to "intelligent design"

     
  • At 11:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And the publisher explained that.

     
  • At 8:53 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Rich Hughes, you asserted that we "know" accident causes intelligence, as if there were any logic in that. Darwinists already claim that random chaos is the most logical cause of complex order and that death (selection) is the cause of life. Now some actually propose that blind accident causes intellience?

    Do Darwinists come from a bizzaro earth where everything is the opposite of its own meaning?

    My assertion is not the least bit "unanchored". Intelligence and accident are complete opposites and mutually exclusive by definition. An action can be intentional or it can be unintentional, but it cannot be both. If what you are thinking right now is random accident, then it isnt intelligence but temporal luck. Are you seriously asserting that all of the chemo-electric data transfers in your brain are randomly produced? Seriously?

     
  • At 9:38 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Rich, talk about unanchored assertions: "ID doesn't mention the designer (in public) because they want to teach creationism but aren't allowed to."

    ...And you know what these evil churchgoers want because you are psychic or because you have infitrated the conspiracy's inner chamber? The few ultra-fundamentalists who advocate teaching Creationism are unabashed Creationists. Your paranoia aside, I want ID taught in schools because it is scientific fact, and Darwinism is a laughable crock.

    I would fight the teaching of Creationism with as much force as I fight against your non-factual religious beliefs being taught. Except that battle has long been fought and won. Now you are the problem that needs to be corrected.

    You sound like Ogre (obviously you're a sock puppet. lol), who thinks he is more an authority on what we believe than we are ourselves. If you want to know what IDists believe, listen to US, not the anti-ID websites.

     
  • At 9:56 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    As to the math, I have read several dozen of the best and brightest and they repudiate Darwinism thoroughly. I know there are a few Darwinist biologists who have endevoured in "biomath" as an attempt to redeem their flawed theory, but as soon as they mention "selection", I know they are frauds.

    There have been entire conventions of mathematicians gathered to address the problem and the unanimous conclusion has been anti-Darwinism. It is not even remotely close.The odds are so against you that they couldnt be calculated until the computer era, and even still they mut be broken down into small steps in order to reach a number. It would be an enormous project that few have attempted to find the odds against full accidentalism, but statistical impossibility is kinda the norm for every step of the way.

    Evidence shows that evolution is not gradual, but long periods of stasis followed by sudden genomic leaps to fully formed new species.

    Mathematicians can calculate both gradualism and punctuated equilibrium, but gradualism doesnt help you. For one thing you only have a few billion years and odds in the range of septo-centillions to one just to get a dead protocell. Getting that cell to reproduce by luck is a number that dwarfs the first statistical impossibility, and you still have no way for any further intelligent action or reproduction, since you relied on luck alone and nothing is moving intelligently.

    Sometimes the mathematicians wish the materialists could be a little less wrong.

     
  • At 9:18 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Rich Hughes, you Darwinists have a flair for observing one thing and then claiming the opposite. Let me check my Materialist catechism for what you pass off as "science":

    1. The most plausible explanation for complex functionality is random chaos.

    2. Death (selection) cause life.

    ...and now number 3. Accidental mess causes intelligent intent.

    Brilliant. And you say we "know" this opposite of reality with no evidence to back it up. And you say my assertion is "unanchored".

    Intelligence and accident are mutually exclusive opposites. Activity can be intentional or it can be unintentional but it cant be both. You really need to be obsessed with a false materialist religious belief to not understand.

    Yep, it is just an "illusion" that we all think we have free will and self-awareness. Hey how do we know any of what is happening is real? I will state this: There is no more certain scientific fact than our own intelligence. If we cant notch that in as a certainty, then no fact is safe from the claim that observations are really "illusions".

    Do you for one minute ever even think about the unspeakably impossible odds against your random accident magic? Wow.

    If intelligence could be formed by accident, then it would be a temporal stroke of luck, as it would go away just as quickly as it came. This isnt even a "millions of years" excuse. More than a third of all humans that have ever existed have been alive in my lifetime, so we should have witnessed the random accident decline in intelligence. A Blind Watchmaker's broken watch is only right twice a day, after all.

    Science, unlike your religious materialist dogma, observes how neural pathways in the brain form. They form only AFTER thoughts are repeated enough to form them. Chemo-electric data transmissions unfailingly are retained when unneeded and repeatedly activate when needed... Thousands of times a minute, they prove you to be an unscientific fool.

     
  • At 10:59 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Rich Hughes says "Wrong - ID doesn't mention the designer (in public) because they want to teach creationism but aren't allowed to."

    And you know this despite the fact that ID says the exact opposite because you are psychic or because you have infiltrated the inner sanctum of evil churchgoers?

    Not only does ID not want to teach Creationism, but we oppose Creationism. Your paranoia aside, the battle to keep Creationism and anything Biblical out of science class has been fought and handily won. Now we need to rid science classes of the anti-scientific religious stupidity of materialism. People like you are the problem. There is no science in Darwinism.

     
  • At 10:53 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "And you know this despite the fact that ID says the exact opposite because you are psychic or because you have infiltrated the inner sanctum of evil churchgoers?"

    Artificially bifurcate much?

    I know it because they explicitly stated it in their 'wedge' document.

     
  • At 10:54 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "And the publisher explained that."

    Care to summerize why its okay?

     
  • At 10:56 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Not only does ID not want to teach Creationism, but we oppose Creationism"

    Few questions:

    Where are you getting this overarching "we" from?

    How come you're the spokesperson?

    How come creationists like Joe are also design CDesignPropentsists, then?

    Thanks for you time.

     
  • At 8:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    I know it because they explicitly stated it in their 'wedge' document.

    Except it doesn't say to teach Creationism in that document. You lie.

     
  • At 8:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "And the publisher explained that."

    Rich:
    Care to summerize why its okay?

    The publisher already did that:

    Early Drafts Of Pandas Did Not In Fact Advocate Creationism As It Has Been Defined By The Supreme Court.

     
  • At 8:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    How come creationists like Joe are also design CDesignPropentsists, then?

    Except I am not a creationist acording to the acepted definition of a creationist.

    IOW once again RichTard has to lie to try to make a point.

     
  • At 9:01 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Google "after the bar closes" and join the discussion there. Its a much better, more diverse and less moderated forum than here, with instant comment promotion.

    Except there aren't any discussions going on there- it is a place for cowards to congragate so they don't feel so afraid.

     
  • At 2:25 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    " a place for cowards to congragate"

    All the posts go through, Joe. Unlike here. Who's the coward?

     
  • At 2:27 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Early Drafts Of Pandas Did Not In Fact Advocate Creationism As It Has Been Defined By The Supreme Court."

    Erm, No reference to OP&P, and that is an amicus brief.

     
  • At 2:28 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Except I am not a creationist acording to the acepted definition of a creationist.

    Joe, John, Jim - you're confused as to who you are at the best of times.

     
  • At 6:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Except there aren't any discussions going on there- it is a place for cowards to congragate so they don't feel so afraid.

    Rich:
    All the posts go through, Joe.

    So what? You are still a bunch of cowards unable to support your position and in desperate need of support from other losers.

    Rich:
    Unlike here.

    All relevant posts go through here, unlike Ogre's blog and unlike Jerry Coyne's blog.

    Rich:
    Who's the coward?

    You and the rest of the evotard minions.

     
  • At 6:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Early Drafts Of Pandas Did Not In Fact Advocate Creationism As It Has Been Defined By The Supreme Court."

    Rich:
    Erm, No reference to OP&P,

    The second sentence referenced the book you moron.

    and that is an amicus brief.

    So what?

     
  • At 6:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Except I am not a creationist acording to the acepted definition of a creationist.

    Rich, bathroom stall boy, pathological liar:
    Joe, John, Jim - you're confused as to who you are at the best of times.

    Any confusion is all yours- as has been proven time and again.

     
  • At 6:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The correct link:

    Early Drafts Of Pandas Did Not In Fact Advocate Creationism As It Has Been Defined By The Supreme Court:

    While certain early drafts of Pandas and other writings may have used the terms “creation” and “creationists,” it is clear that these terms were defined to mean something quite different from “creationism” as later defined by the Supreme Court. As noted earlier, from the beginning Pandas specifically rejected the view that science could detect whether the intelligent cause identified was supernatural. Although the process by which an intelligent agent produces a designed object can loosely be called a “creation” (as in stating that this brief was the “creation” of several lawyers), the authors of Pandas clearly understood that this was a “placeholder” for a more sophisticated expression of this concept. A pre-Edwards draft from early 1987 emphatically stated that “observable instances of information cannot tell us if the intellect behind them is natural or supernatural. This is not a question that science can answer.” The same early draft rejected the eighteenth century design argument from William Paley because it illegitimately tried “to extrapolate to the supernatural” from the empirical data of science. Paley was wrong because “there is no basis in uniform experience for going from nature to the supernatural, for inferring an unobserved supernatural cause from an observed effect.” Similarly, another early draft (also from when the manuscript was still titled “Biology and Origins”) stated: "[T]here are two things about which we cannot learn through uniform sensory experience. One is the supernatural, and so to teach it in science classes would be out of place . . . [S]cience can identify an intellect, but is powerless to tell us if that intellect is within the universe or beyond it." By unequivocally affirming that the empirical evidence of science “cannot tell us if the intellect behind [the information in life] was natural or supernatural” it should be clear that the early drafts of Pandas meant something very different by “creation” than did the Supreme Court in Edwards. The decision to use the term “intelligent design” in the final draft to express the emerging theory of origins was not an attempt to evade a court decision, as Plaintiffs have alleged, but rather to furnish a more precise description of the emerging scientific theory.

     
  • At 9:32 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "it is clear that these terms were defined to mean something quite different from “creationism” as later defined by the Supreme Court."

    Weaksauce. Equivocating on "creation" - well I guess its an evolution textbook then as evolution 'creates'.

    FTE's statement of incorporation:

    "The purposes for which the corporation is formed are, 1) the primary purpose is both religious and educational, which includes, but is not limited to, proclaiming, publishing, preaching, teaching, promoting, broadcasting, disseminating, and otherwise making known the Christian gospel and understanding of the Bible and the light it sheds on the academic and social issues of our day."

    You never have to dig very deep. You just never dig.

     
  • At 9:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "it is clear that these terms were defined to mean something quite different from “creationism” as later defined by the Supreme Court."

    RichTard:
    Weaksauce.

    Yes I understand that facts don't mean very much to you.

    RichTard:
    Equivocating on "creation"

    Prove it. I bet you are the one doing the equivocation.

    I noticed you have never provided a definition of Creationist nor Creationism- a definition that is widely accepted- as the USSC definition is.

    RichTard:
    well I guess its an evolution textbook then as evolution 'creates'.

    Intelligent design evolution creates. Blind watchmaker evolution breaks things.

     
  • At 9:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    FTE's statement of incorporation:

    So what? The publisher is not the book.

     
  • At 9:58 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And in typical cowardly fashion when faced with the facts RichTard attackes the messenger.

     
  • At 10:56 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    OP&P:

    "take the view that the earth's history can be compressed into a framework of thousands of years, while others adhere to the standard old earth chronology."

    "Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc"

     
  • At 11:13 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    You've cited copy from FTE's website then get your panties in a bunch when I show their ideological foundations? Okay Joe / John / Jim (Muslim creationist). Keep up the good work.

    If you can shoot the messenger, you shouldn't cite them either. ;-)

     
  • At 11:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    You've cited copy from FTE's website...

    In direct response to your comment about the publisher you moron.

     
  • At 11:32 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard
    OP&P:

    "take the view that the earth's history can be compressed into a framework of thousands of years, while others adhere to the standard old earth chronology."

    "Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc"


    What pages and what editions?

     
  • At 11:39 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "In direct response to your comment about the publisher you moron."

    I didn't mention FTE until after you linked to them.

     
  • At 11:44 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "In direct response to your comment about the publisher you moron."

    RichTard:
    I didn't mention FTE until after you linked to them.

    You linked to pandas thumb which discussed the book. I linked to th publisher to show that PT was incorrect in their assumptions.

     
  • At 11:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Click hre and read your comment.

     
  • At 9:32 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Click hre and read your comment."

    I link to the Pandas Thumb.

     
  • At 9:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    I link to the Pandas Thumb.

    Right, as I said:

    You linked to pandas thumb which discussed the book. I linked to the publisher to show that PT was incorrect in their assumptions.

    Which supports:

    "In direct response to your comment about the publisher you moron."

    Your comment was a link to pandas thumb which discussed the book. So I provided the publisher to explain.

    But thank you for continuing to prove that you are a clueless dolt.

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

    My origional comments were about the content, not the publisher.

    And again, you were the first person to bring up the publisher, so I have no clue why you're having a "shoot the messenger" hissy.

    I don't think we can repost enough the glaringly obvious ID = Creationism:

    "Creation [later, DESIGN!] means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc"

    Joe / John / Jim the creationist Muslim.

     
  • At 11:42 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    My origional comments were about the content, not the publisher.

    The publisher explained the content- just as I havebeen telling you but obviously you are too stupid to understand.

    RichTard:
    And again, you were the first person to bring up the publisher,

    And I told you why. Are you stupid?

    RichTard:
    I don't think we can repost enough the glaringly obvious ID = Creationism:

    Excpet it doesn't- not according to the people who count, anyway.

    RichTard misquotes the book:
    "Creation [later, DESIGN!] means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc"

    What page and what edition is that out-of-context quote in, Richard/ bathroom stall boy/ drip-lip?

     
  • At 12:51 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "The publisher explained the content" - not really. The excuses were funny, though. And let's be clear, they used FIND AND REPLACE to replace CREATION with DESIGN.

    "Excpet it doesn't- not according to the people who count, anyway."

    Scientists, you mean? FIND AND REPLACE.

    Creation Biology (1983), p. 3-34: “Evolutionists think the former is correct; creationists because of all the evidence discussed in this book, conclude the latter is correct.”

    Biology and Creation (1986), p. 3-33: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

    Biology and Origins (1987), p. 3-38: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

    Of Pandas and People (1987, creationist version), p. 3-40: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.”

    Of Pandas and People (1987, “intelligent design” version), p. 3-41: “Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.”

    '86 draft, 'biology and creation' vs. the more recent OP&P.

     
  • At 12:53 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."

    Judge Jones

     
  • At 12:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."

    Judge Jones


    ID is testable, not grounded in religion nor does it misrepesent any well-established scientific propositions.

    Jonesy is still full of shit.

     
  • At 1:01 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "ID is testable,"

    So you say, yet never do.

    Come back when you can calculate the (C)SI of a cake.

     
  • At 1:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "The publisher explained the content"

    RichTard:
    - not really.

    Just because you and other agenda-driven loser evotards choose not to accept the explanation doesn't mean anything to the United Staes supreme court which hasits definition of Creationsim- and that is the only one that counts.

    However if you insist on being a loser asshole I will once AGAIN refer you to a RELEASED edition of darwin's "On the Origins of Species...":

    There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

     
  • At 1:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Dictionary.com defines creationism as “Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.”

    Merriam-Webster defines it as “a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis."

    The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as “Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.”


    “Essentially the same definition even appears in the scientific, peer reviewed literature” Mike Gene:

    Creationists are those who believe that God created the universe, and all species alive today, in a geological instant several thousand years ago. The usual motive for creationism is conformity to a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesisor some analogous scripture. (Leigh EG Jr. 1999. The modern synthesis, Ronald Fisher and creationism. Trends Ecol Evol. 14:495-498.)

    Futuyma’s Glossary:

    The doctrine that each species (or perhaps higher taxon) of organism was created separately in much its present form, by a supernatural creator

    Creation stands and falls with the Bible. ID doesn’t require the Bible NOR a belief in “God”.

    IOW Rich you are an ignorant fuck.

     
  • At 1:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "ID is testable,"

    RichTard:
    So you say, yet never do.

    Yes, I have. You are just too ignorant to understand science. Don't blame us.

    OTOH your position is total nonsense as you and your band of cowards have proven every day.

     
  • At 3:00 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Creation stands and falls with the Bible."

    Muslims (like you) will be amazed to hear this.

    "Yes, I have." Please tell us what you've calculated the (C)SI for, what the final total was and your workings.

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

    "Creation stands and falls with the Bible."

    RichTard:
    Muslims (like you) will be amazed to hear this.

    I wrote it you moron. And I doubt there are any '"muslims" like me'. You don't know what you are talking about, as usual.

    "Yes, I have."

    RichTard:
    Please tell us what you've calculated the (C)SI for, what the final total was and your workings.

    Again? You were obviously too stupid to understand any of it the first time.

    What does your poition have to offer? Are you still upset that the design inference, in part, relies on the fact that your position is a total failure?

     
  • At 4:01 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe:

    "What does your poition have to offer? Are you still upset that the design inference, in part, relies on the fact that your position is a total failure?"

    Meet John:

    "However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."

    Turns out his opinion was a bit more important than yours.

     
  • At 4:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "What does your poition have to offer? Are you still upset that the design inference, in part, relies on the fact that your position is a total failure?"

    RichTard requotes an obviously scientifically illiterate judge (of all people to reference on science only a moron would reference a judge):
    "However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."

    ID is testable, not grounded in religion nor does it misrepesent any well-established scientific propositions.

    Jonesy is still full of shit.


    RichTard:
    Turns out his opinion was a bit more important than yours.

    Except mine is a fact not an opinion and his is totally useless outside a small insignifcant school district in Pennsylvania.

    Not only that legal scholars have torn his opinion to shreds.

     
  • At 4:44 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Except mine is a fact": Oh stop please, too much hilarity!

    "Not only that legal scholars have torn his opinion to shreds.": 'Legal scolars' is a very low bar, and I'm sue at least as many 'legal scholars' have found it to be good. Anyone of note?

     
  • At 6:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Except mine is a fact not an opinion and his is totally useless outside a small insignifcant school district in Pennsylvania.

    RichTard:
    Oh stop please, too much hilarity!

    Yes I understand how reality must make you laugh.

    "Not only that legal scholars have torn his opinion to shreds.":

    RichTard:
    'Legal scolars' is a very low bar

    Not as low as referencing a fereakin' judge on something related to science.

    RichTard:
    I'm sue at least as many 'legal scholars' have found it to be good.

    I doubt it. And if it is ever challenged- as Scopes challenged the law- it will easily be overturned. But again the decision only applies to that little insignificant district in Pennsylvania and still remains unsupported.

     
  • At 6:47 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    ID is testable, not grounded in religion nor does it misrepesent any well-established scientific propositions.

    OTOH your position is obviously untestable, is grounded in materialistic atheism and misrepresents all opposition.

    Such is the lowlife of evotards...

     
  • At 8:01 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "I doubt it. And if it is ever challenged- as Scopes challenged the law- it will easily be overturned"

    Off you go then, big boy. I'll be in the front row laughing.

     
  • At 8:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "I doubt it. And if it is ever challenged- as Scopes challenged the law- it will easily be overturned"

    RichTard:
    Off you go then, big boy.

    I can't challenge it you moron. It looks like you are ignorant of the legal system also.

    RichTard:
    I'll be in the front row laughing.

    I am sure you will be drooling too.

     
  • At 9:05 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Rich Hughes, sorry I havent come back to this thread in a few days, but I will give you far more credit than your fellow materialists who have run for the hills. At least you are discussing the issue at hand.

    Let me first state that the 85% of the population that disagrees with you, myslf included, did not sign a wedge document. You are not liable for every stupid thing a Darwinist has said or done, nor does ID need to come up with a new name because of a few Creationists claiming to be IDists.

    Rich asks: "Where are you getting this overarching 'we' from?" and asks why I am the spokesperson for ID. I have a better question:

    What makes you think YOU are the spokesperson for ID?

    It actually makes perfect sense for me to speak with authority about what I advocate. I think the debate already exposed the futility of people like you and Ogre claiming to "know" what we advocate even though we keep telling you the opposite.

    At some point you really need to abandon the strawman fallacy and debate the science. If any of us believe something other than what we are saying, thats our loss. How about you say what you advocate and I say what I advocate?

     
  • At 11:44 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Rich asks: "How come creationists like Joe are also design CDesignPropentsists, then?"

    I thought Joe said he is not a Creationist. Is this another game of switching the opponents argument because you cant face up to what they are really saying?

    Why are some creationists also claiming to be IDists? Obviously our scientific evidence is the same, but Creationists go beyond the evidence to claim proof of their religious beliefs.

    ID does no such thing, no matter how much you wish we would. If you insist on dodging the challenge of debating intelligent evolution versus random mess evolution, then go debate with the creationists or get a barrel of fish to shoot at.

    How about getting back to the true debate: Intelligent evolution versus random accident? Werent we talkng about how to distinguish one from the other using the scientific method? Does science scare you so much that you needed a straw man to beat up on?

    How would you propose putting some teeth behind your claims that random chaos is the cause of functional living beings? Do you have any evidence, logic or math whatsoever to back this up?

    Or do you still want to escape science by changing our argument?

     
  • At 12:03 AM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    I'll also comment on Judge Jones' attack on science. He made some classic errors, such as the mistaken belief that materialists hold a wealth of evidence needing only the filling in of a few holes. He says materialism "...cannot yet render an explanation on every point".

    Materialism has yet to front an explanation on ANY point, and they have been proven to be unquestionably wrong. They have nothing scientific because their religious beliefs are absolutely false. ID is a fully tested and repeatable science, not a "pretext".

    After all of the name-calling and accusations fall aside, at some point Darwinists have to actually explain something or prove their case, as ID is already doing. Cold hard facts cannot be avoided forever.

     
  • At 10:50 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Let me first state that the 85% of the population that disagrees with you, myslf included, did not sign a wedge document."

    True. Nor did they start the ID movement, with clear aims and objectives. If you want to start "THE REAL ID MOVEMENT" and distance yourselves, that's fine. I still suspect your endeavour will be scientifically barren, though.

    "What makes you think YOU are the spokesperson for ID?"

    (1) bad tu quoque
    (2) I'm not, but I am pointing out the various disparate and incongruent things they do.

    "ID does no such thing, no matter how much you wish we would." I think ID already did. but not your true ID (c) obviuosly.

    "I think the debate already exposed the futility of people like you and Ogre claiming to "know" what we advocate even though we keep telling you the opposite."

    Again, you've assumed "we".

    "At some point you really need to abandon the strawman fallacy and debate the science"

    Cool - show me an experiment that makes a positive case for ID.

     
  • At 10:53 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Materialism has yet to front an explanation on ANY point, and they have been proven to be unquestionably wrong. They have nothing scientific because their religious beliefs are absolutely false. ID is a fully tested and repeatable science, not a "pretext". "

    Oh you're a Poe. but a good one. I'll ceratinly agree that 'materialism' is rubbish - I teleport to work, defy gravity, ESP the news, etc. and ID is fully tested and repeatable - look there's someone confirming results for an ID experiment right now..

     
  • At 7:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Cool - show me an experiment that makes a positive case for ID.

    So far all of them. Every experiment conducted to date has demonstrated that living organisms are irreducibly complex, ie not reducble to matter and energy and also meet the design criteria.

     
  • At 7:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    I still suspect your endeavour will be scientifically barren, though.

    Then it will right there with the theory of evolution which has proven to be scientifically barren.

     
  • At 9:54 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "So far all of them. Every experiment conducted to date has demonstrated that living organisms are irreducibly complex, ie not reducble to matter and energy and also meet the design criteria."


    No, that's not a positive case. asserting they are "not something" is a negative case. And you're spinning - how many are explicitly testing the hypothesis "are living organisms reducible to energy and matter?"

     
  • At 4:53 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "So far all of them. Every experiment conducted to date has demonstrated that living organisms are irreducibly complex, ie not reducble to matter and energy and also meet the design criteria."

    RichTard:
    No, that's not a positive case

    Sure it is- that is how the design inference works dumbass. You eliminate chance and necessity plus meet the design criteria.

    RichTard:
    And you're spinning - how many are explicitly testing the hypothesis "are living organisms reducible to energy and matter?"

    That is what the data demonsrates regardless of what anyone is trying to do.

    And yes plenty of scientis are trying to demonstrate living organisms are reducible to physics and chemistry.

     
  • At 5:54 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    You've highlighted that the 'design inference' is in fact a negative case, by virtue of it's 'NOT the other' premise.

    How about this: If we don't see it being designed, it must be chance and / or necessity. why isn't that valid?

    Cake and eat it, gents.

     
  • At 6:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTar:
    You've highlighted that the 'design inference' is in fact a negative case, by virtue of it's 'NOT the other' premise.

    The "not the other" is only part of it you moron. And it is a MANDATORY part. Also it is a mandatory part of archaeology, forensics and SETI.

    Ya see moron the explanatory filter mandates that necessity and chance (physics and chemistry) be eliminated first. Only then do we see if there is some specification/ work/ counterflow.

    RichTard:
    How about this: If we don't see it being designed, it must be chance and / or necessity. why isn't that valid?

    So Stonehenge, the pyramids, Pumapunko, etc. are all chance and necessity?

    That is just fucking stupid.

    Rich, the design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships in accordance with uniformitarianism.

    And obviously your position is based on the bald declaration "anything but design".

    But thanks for continuing to prove that you are ignorant of how scienc works.

     
  • At 11:29 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    So it boils down to "looks design to me"

    Thanks guys.

     
  • At 8:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    So it boils down to "looks design to me"

    Really? Is THAZT how archaeologists, SETI researchers and forensic science works? Or are you just an ignorant fucking cry-baby who couldn't support its position if its life depended on it?

     
  • At 12:02 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe
    Is THAZT how archaeologists, SETI researchers and forensic science works? Or are you just an ignorant fucking cry-baby who couldn't support its position if its life depended on it?

    According to you those fields use the EF.

    Can you give me an example of the usage of the EF in each of those fields to support that claim?

     
  • At 1:27 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    According to you those fields use the EF.

    It is the way they have to do it. Ya see you do not go looking for a criminal unless you have evidence fora crime. You do not go looking for a civilization/ group of long-dead people unless you have evidence for their existence.

     
  • At 1:39 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    It is the way they have to do it. Ya see you do not go looking for a criminal unless you have evidence fora crime. You do not go looking for a civilization/ group of long-dead people unless you have evidence for their existence.

    And when you find what you think is an artifact perhaps created by a group of long dead people you can run it through the EF to determine if it was designed or if it was in fact a natural object.

    Oh, wait.

     
  • At 1:54 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    And when you find what you think is an artifact perhaps created by a group of long dead people you can run it through the EF to determine if it was designed or if it was in fact a natural object.

    According to Isaac Newton, et al., that is how it is done.

    Don't blame me for your ignorance.

     
  • At 7:54 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Rich, you claimed nobody can infer design unless we see it being designed? So if archeologists find ancient ruins they must assume the underground structures formed accidentally?? Thats beyond stupid.

    You and OM are stumbling over the easy part. Few outside of talkorigins claim to not understand the concept of design inference. The claim from materialist biologists is that the evidence shows intelligent agency, but they refuse to believe it ans seek other unseen answers.

    If you witness someone designing something, you dont need an INFERENCE.

     
  • At 8:27 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Rich, when pressed for a discussion about science says:

    "Cool - show me an experiment that makes a positive case for ID"

    We have presented scientific experiments for you, with no response. Was this just another avoid-science tactic? An experiment must be 100% positive for intelligent cause without any concurrent blow to your failed random mess theory?

    Intentional activity and unintentional activity are two 100% mutually exclusive concepts, so no matter how much we show you solid positive proof of intelligence, you can claim that it simultaneously disproves your random accident claims. That is just a desperate dodge.

    Still, positive evidence for intelligence is more certain than any other scientific fact ever claimed. Need an experiment to detect your intelligence? (Little wonder) Raise your hand. Were you able to intelligently and by intent cause movement of matter?

    Intelligence animates matter purposefully. Think about it... er that is, let accidental flows of chemo-electric data transmissions cause the "illusion" of you thinking about it.

    Oh, almost forgot. You can lower your hand now. Whew! Good thing you were wrong.

     
  • At 8:43 PM, Blogger IntelligentAnimation said…

    Rich says: "I'll ceratinly agree that 'materialism' is rubbish - I teleport to work, defy gravity, ESP the news, etc."

    Fool, gravity is not evidence of materialism. All forces of nature, including intelligent animation (life) are immaterial and not tangible or visible.

    And you DO defy gravity to an extent. Every time you get out of bed in the morning, you witness an example of intelligent agency defying other immaterial forces.

    That attraction to the pillow, for one....

    Gravity, like nuclear forces and intelligence, has specific qualities and limits. This is not a claim that all imaginable immaterial forces must also exist. Only those such as gravity or intelligence that are so clearly shown in all evidence.

    It is sheer religious foolishness to claim that intelligence can not exist, even though science proves it does, simply because you dont believe in immaterial forces that are observed in nature.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home