Why the Explanatory Filter is Standard Operating Procedure
-
EvoTards are so clueless. Out of one side of their mouths they summon Occam's Razor- don't add unnecessary entitities. Yet out of the other side of their ass they say that the Explanatory Filter (EF) is useless and is not standard operating procedure. However the EF is how you go about figuring what was required to bring about the observed result! IOW the EF is how you determine what gets sliced off by the razor and what is required to produce the observed result.
Also, as I have been saying, the EF is the process you would use to try to refute any given design inference.
That said to determine arson given a fire scene the investigator has to eliminate necessity and chance before looking into arson. A homicide is not determined just given a dead body- there has to be evidence of foul play so FIRST necessity and chance must be eliminated.
The problem is I have explaned all of this and the evotardgasms still spew every time I say the the EF is SOP. And I am sure I will evotards messing up this thread also because they are just plain ignorant of how to conduct an investigation.
EvoTards are so clueless. Out of one side of their mouths they summon Occam's Razor- don't add unnecessary entitities. Yet out of the other side of their ass they say that the Explanatory Filter (EF) is useless and is not standard operating procedure. However the EF is how you go about figuring what was required to bring about the observed result! IOW the EF is how you determine what gets sliced off by the razor and what is required to produce the observed result.
Also, as I have been saying, the EF is the process you would use to try to refute any given design inference.
That said to determine arson given a fire scene the investigator has to eliminate necessity and chance before looking into arson. A homicide is not determined just given a dead body- there has to be evidence of foul play so FIRST necessity and chance must be eliminated.
The problem is I have explaned all of this and the evotardgasms still spew every time I say the the EF is SOP. And I am sure I will evotards messing up this thread also because they are just plain ignorant of how to conduct an investigation.
posted by Joe G @ 8:45 AM
74 Comments:
At 10:31 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Nonsense. If we find toxins or blunt force trauma, we've not excluding the chance hypothesis but looking for meaningful signs of agency involvement - something ID doesn't (can't) do.
At 11:01 AM,
CBD said…
Can you give an example of how the EF would be used in a suspected arson investigation?
Please include supporting data at each of the nodes and how you worked that out.
Also, as I have been saying, the EF is the process you would use to try to refute any given design inference.
An object is found in orbit around Mars. Is it designed?
At 12:00 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Also, as I have been saying, the EF is the process you would use to try to refute any given design inference.
I thought the EF was was you used to make the determination of design in the first place?
Perhaps it would clarify the issue if you could give a worked out real life example of the EF in use?
As opposed to talking about it, describing it, describing how it's used all the time but people just don't know it and so on.
At 1:01 PM,
Joe G said…
RichTard:
If we find toxins or blunt force trauma, we've not excluding the chance hypothesis but looking for meaningful signs of agency involvement -
No we first have to eliminate necessity and chance. Blunt-force trauma could be caused by a fall and toxins- well it depends on the toxin. Neither require agency involvement. So before we go looking for agency involvement we must make sure it is required.
At 1:05 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Can you give an example of how the EF would be used in a suspected arson investigation?
Fuck-off moron. FIRST there is a fire investigation- that means there is evidence for a fire.
THEN we try to determine the cause of the fire. The EF is just the process used to do that- entities are added as the filter is traversed.
OM:
An object is found in orbit around Mars. Is it designed?
Which objct? And why are you asking me?
At 1:07 PM,
Joe G said…
Also, as I have been saying, the EF is the process you would use to try to refute any given design inference.
OM:
I thought the EF was was you used to make the determination of design in the first place?
That is because you are a moron.
OM:
Perhaps it would clarify the issue if you could give a worked out real life example of the EF in use?
Do you think scientist flip a coin? Oerhaps you could provide some citation of scientists using some other process to dtermine the cause of some observed effect.
At 7:00 PM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
Rich, actually looking for evidence of intelligent agency kinda defines us. And it isnt as if you have to look very hard to find intelligence in intelligent beings. Its kinda the elephant in the living room.
Joe, I disagree that you have to eliminate accident before intelligent cause. All evidence for or against either scenario should be reviewed with equal priority. After that, a cause can be determined. Why would there be a presumptive default?
OM, I have to say you are floundering with some pretty basic concepts. You are pulling questions out of your arse, expecting a foot-noted thesis on your every whim. I would recommend that you not ask any questions that you arent prepared to answer yourself. Take a remedial science class if you cant fathom the scientific method.
If all we know is that there is an object orbiting a planet, obviously we would need more investigation to know if it was by intelligent cause or chance.
At 7:29 PM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
This is probably a waste of time but I am going to see if I can drag a materialist kicking and screaming into science.
Lets say some biologists looking to see how living tissues form, go to a third world country where there has never been the game of ping pong. Half of a village is taught to play ping pong. Awkward at first, they soon develop "muscle memory" which the biologists know is neural pathways developed in the hands.
The half that did not play ping pong are found to not have those same neural pathways.
The question is: How did these nerve tissues form?
A. Random accident. It was luck that put these nerve cells where needed.
B. Genetic Code. A specific genetic code called for these nerve cells to form.
C. Selection. The villagers who were bad at ping pong were killed.
D. Intelligent cause. The tissues formed purposefully as needed.
E. Nerve cells do not form as described in this example.
Pick your conclusion based on the observation. Lets see who is capable of drawing plausible conclusions from a simple scientific experiment.
At 7:32 PM,
Joe G said…
IntelligentAnimation:
Joe, I disagree that you have to eliminate accident before intelligent cause.
I say we have to eliminate necessity and chance before considering an intelligent cause/ agency was involved.
IntelligentAnimation:
All evidence for or against either scenario should be reviewed with equal priority. After that, a cause can be determined. Why would there be a presumptive default?
"We don't know" is the presumptive default. What we know is we have this "thing" we are observing. Then we look for the most simple explanation that can account for it and test it.
Perhaps your point is that necessity and chance may be able to produce effect X, but did it (because an intelligent cause can mimic necessity and chance)?
We humans can be tricky bastards so we would have to take that in to account- so it would all depend on the situation I suppose.
At 4:04 AM,
CBD said…
IA,
This is probably a waste of time but I am going to see if I can drag a materialist kicking and screaming into science.
Perhaps you could do that by giving an example of the EF in action?
Joe
THEN we try to determine the cause of the fire. The EF is just the process used to do that- entities are added as the filter is traversed.
So can you demonstrate that or not? I know you can talk about how easy it is to use the EF, I know you can talk about what the EF can or cannot do but it seems that the one thing you cannot do is actually demonstrate the usage of the EF.
"We don't know" is the presumptive default. What we know is we have this "thing" we are observing. Then we look for the most simple explanation that can account for it and test it.
The thing is a banana. Or a human eye. What is the most simple explnation for the eye and how can you test it? For a banana?
If you prefer replace "eye" with anything at all. It won't make any difference because you won't be able to generate a simple explanation that'll account for either of them nor will you be able to test that explanation.
It's all theory Joe. When ID grows up and has some practical use, when you can use the EF on objects you know are designed and those that you know are not and it comes up with the right answer, then perhaps ID will start to make headlines.
Until then, it's just us...
At 7:40 AM,
Joe G said…
THEN we try to determine the cause of the fire. The EF is just the process used to do that- entities are added as the filter is traversed.
OM:
So can you demonstrate that or not?
So you think they flip a coin. You are a moron.
OM:
I know you can talk about how easy it is to use the EF, I know you can talk about what the EF can or cannot do but it seems that the one thing you cannot do is actually demonstrate the usage of the EF.
Th one thing you can't do is demonstrate they use something other than th EF.
OM:
If you prefer replace "eye" with anything at all. It won't make any difference because you won't be able to generate a simple explanation that'll account for either of them nor will you be able to test that explanation.
That is YOUR position in a nutshell- unable to provide any scientific explanation for anything. And so you are forced to lash out at ID with your abundant ignorance.
OM:
When ID grows up and has some practical use,
Strange- YOUR position doesn't have any practical use. Go figure...
At 8:11 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
So you think they flip a coin. You are a moron.
You claim that they use the EF, yet cannot point to such an example.
Th one thing you can't do is demonstrate they use something other than th EF.
If that was my claim then your point would be relevant. However it's not. My claim is not that they don't use the EF, your claim is that they do. As such my claim is that you claim that they use the EF but are unable to provide any supporting evidence other then "if they don't use the EF then what do they use?"
That is YOUR position in a nutshell- unable to provide any scientific explanation for anything. And so you are forced to lash out at ID with your abundant ignorance.
And the ID "explanation" for the eye is what?
"It was designed".
What type of eye was designed Joe? All of them? Just the human eye? How do you know?
Strange- YOUR position doesn't have any practical use. Go figure...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_evolution
Viral evolution is a subfield of evolutionary biology and virology that is specifically concerned with the evolution of viruses. Many viruses, in particular RNA viruses, have short generation times and relatively high mutation rates (on the order of one point mutation or more per genome per round of replication for RNA viruses). This elevated mutation rate, when combined with natural selection, allows viruses to quickly adapt to changes in their host environment.
Viral evolution is an important aspect of the epidemiology of viral diseases such as influenza (influenza virus), AIDS (HIV), and hepatitis (e.g. HCV). It also causes problems in the development of successful vaccines and antiviral drugs, as resistant mutations often appear within weeks or months after the beginning of the treatment.
RNA viruses are also used as a model system to study evolution in the laboratory.
One of the main theoretical models to study viral evolution is the quasispecies model, as the viral quasispecies.
At 8:38 AM,
Joe G said…
Om:
You claim that they use the EF, yet cannot point to such an example.
And I have explained why. And obvioulsy you are too stupid to understand the explanation.
Th one thing you can't do is demonstrate they use something other than th EF.
If that was my claim then your point would be relevant.
It is your claim if you say thy do not use the EF.
Strange- YOUR position doesn't have any practical use. Go figure...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_evolution
Nice that fits in OK with baraminology.
IOW you are an equivocating coward.
At 8:43 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
And I have explained why. And obvioulsy you are too stupid to understand the explanation.
I can understand it, I just don't believe it. It would be far simpler for you to link to an example of an arson investigator or an archaeologist using what you claim that they use.
There is enough such work out there that you could pick any one of 100's of examples and say "this process is the EF in use, except that they don't actually call it the EF but all the stages detailed are there".
You could do that if your claim was true, of course. But you can't and so....
It is your claim if you say thy do not use the EF.
I'm claiming that you cannot provide any evidence for your claim that arson investigators or archaeologist are using anything analogous to the EF.
Nice that fits in OK with baraminology.
Does it? Perhaps you should go and update the Wikipedia page.
And it answers your question as to what practical use evolution has. Without an understanding of evolution and evolutionary arms races we'd be at a much greater disadvantage when trying to fight viri. Or did you forget your own question?
At 8:52 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
I can understand it, I just don't believe it.
Well that is YOUR problem.
OM:
It would be far simpler for you to link to an example of an arson investigator or an archaeologist using what you claim that they use.
They have to for the reasons provided.
OM:
I'm claiming that you cannot provide any evidence for your claim that arson investigators or archaeologist are using anything analogous to the EF.
They have to for the reasons provided.
Nice that fits in OK with baraminology.
Does it?
Yes it does you ignorant tard.
Perhaps you should go and update the Wikipedia page.
Wikipedia openly admits it isn't a credible source.
And it answers your question as to what practical use evolution has.
Fuck you you piece of shit equivocating coward. I did NOT ask about "evolution".
Thanks for continuing to prove that you are an asshole.
At 9:11 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Well that is YOUR problem.
It's also your problem. I'm open to being convinced. If you were to simply link to an example of what you claim is true that would convince me!
They have to for the reasons provided.
And therefore you should be able to link to such an investigation and point out how each stage of the investigation correlates to each stage of the EF.
Yet you can't.
Fuck you you piece of shit equivocating coward. I did NOT ask about "evolution".
You asked about "my position" and "my position" is that evolution does not require, need or show any evidence of telic involvement at any level.
At 9:19 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
It's also your problem.
Nope. It isn't my problem that you are willfully ignorant and cannot support anything you post.
OM:
I'm open to being convinced.
All evidence to the contrary of course.
OM:
And therefore you should be able to link to such an investigation and point out how each stage of the investigation correlates to each stage of the EF.
They have to for the reasons provided.
Ya see moron they cannot say "homicide" just given a dead body and they cannot support the claim of "homicide" if nature, operating freely can account for the dead body.
OM:
You asked about "my position" and "my position" is that evolution does not require, need or show any evidence of telic involvement at any level.
Yet you cannot support that position. And the wiki link didn't hlp.
At 9:29 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
All evidence to the contrary of course.
Why don't you find out?
Ya see moron they cannot say "homicide" just given a dead body and they cannot support the claim of "homicide" if nature, operating freely can account for the dead body.
That's right Joe. And if they used a process like the EF you'd be able to point to any number of famous murder investigations and link each stage of them to a node in the EF.
Except you can't or won't do that. I wonder why!
Yet you cannot support that position. And the wiki link didn't hlp.
My "postion" is taught in schools, much to the dismay of creationists and IDers like yourself.
At 10:18 AM,
Joe G said…
OM,
The EF is Occam's razor- or as Isaac Newton put it- "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."
It is how science is conducted when trying to determine the cause of something when given only the result/ effect.
Are you really that fucking stupid?
Yet you cannot support that position. And the wiki link didn't hlp.
OM:
My "postion" is taught in schools, much to the dismay of creationists and IDers like yourself.
having unsubstantiated tripe taught in schools should be to the dismay of all rational people. However you and your ilk are proud of it. Go figure...
At 11:11 AM,
CBD said…
Joe,
It is how science is conducted when trying to determine the cause of something when given only the result/ effect.
The result is HIV. What is the cause of HIV?
having unsubstantiated tripe taught in schools should be to the dismay of all rational people.
What would you have taught with regard to Intelligent Design?
HIV was designed?
At 11:13 AM,
CBD said…
Joe
Yet you cannot support that position. And the wiki link didn't hlp.
My position is amply supported by the fact that no telic intervention has *ever* been observed.
Now, your position that the EF is used in arson investigations. That's an unsupported position. You could show me where a real arson investigator uses a process like the EF if you wanted to support it but for some reason you refuse to do that....
At 11:17 AM,
Joe G said…
OM:
My position is amply supported by the fact that no telic intervention has *ever* been observed.
Neither ID nor baraminology require any intervention. And no one has ever observed genetic accidents accumulating in such a way as to construct useful, functional multi-part systems.
OM
Now, your position that the EF is used in arson investigations.
Nope. Try again.
At 11:20 AM,
Joe G said…
It is how science is conducted when trying to determine the cause of something when given only the result/ effect.
OM:
The result is HIV.
Is it?
OM:
What is the cause of HIV?
You go first- show us how necessity and our chance can produce any virus from scratch.
having unsubstantiated tripe taught in schools should be to the dismay of all rational people.
OM
What would you have taught with regard to Intelligent Design?
I have already blogged about what I would have taught.
At 11:21 AM,
Joe G said…
The EF is Occam's razor- or as Isaac Newton put it- "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."
It is how science is conducted when trying to determine the cause of something when given only the result/ effect.
Are you really that fucking stupid?
(that would be a "YES")
At 1:28 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Neither ID nor baraminology require any intervention.
Baraminology is a creationist taxonomic system that classifies animals into groups called "created kinds" or "baramins" (pronounced with accent on second syllable) according to the account of creation in the book of Genesis and other parts of the Bible.
I'd call "creation" intervention. A rather big intervention. As big as they come in fact.
And no one has ever observed genetic accidents accumulating in such a way as to construct useful, functional multi-part systems.
Except they have. Lenski's Citrate experement for on. Another would be the evolution of HIV, it got better and better at infecting humans. I'd call that a useful system, from the point of view of the virus anyway.
You go first- show us how necessity and our chance can produce any virus from scratch.
It's called evolution. Viri evolved. Do you dispute even that now? I thought ID was not "anti evolution"?
I have already blogged about what I would have taught.
Would have? I thought that you had already run several "intelligent design awareness days". I guess you were just making that up.
At 1:30 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
It is how science is conducted when trying to determine the cause of something when given only the result/ effect.
The result is a virus called HIV. It kills people. What is the cause?
You go first- show us how necessity and our chance can produce any virus from scratch.
But that logically means that viri are all designed!
Is that what you think Joe? That HIV was designed? I don't see what alternatives there are to consider - you've ruled out evolution as the origin of HIV so what's left, logically, must be design.
Do you think HIV is a punishment Joe?
At 1:42 PM,
CBD said…
Apply this:
START
↓
CONTINGENCY? →No → Necessity (regularity/ law)
↓yes
COMPLEXITY? →No → Chance
↓yes
SPECIFICATION? →No → Chance
↓ yes
Design
To an arson investigation. Bet you can't.
At 1:46 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Apply this:
START
↓
CONTINGENCY? →No → Necessity (regularity/ law)
↓yes
COMPLEXITY? →No → Chance
↓yes
SPECIFICATION? →No → Chance
↓ yes
Design
To an arson investigation. Bet you can't.
Hey asshole- if you have an arson investigation you have already applied the EF.
At 1:48 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Hey asshole- if you have an arson investigation you have already applied the EF.
How so?
Perhaps I can rephrase. Could you show how the EF is used in the various fields that you claim it (or something very close to it) is used?
At 1:49 PM,
CBD said…
What about applying this:
START
↓
CONTINGENCY? →No → Necessity (regularity/ law)
↓yes
COMPLEXITY? →No → Chance
↓yes
SPECIFICATION? →No → Chance
↓ yes
Design
to HIV?
At 1:49 PM,
Joe G said…
It is how science is conducted when trying to determine the cause of something when given only the result/ effect.
OM:
The result is a virus called HIV.
The result of what?
You go first- show us how necessity and our chance can produce any virus from scratch.
OM
But that logically means that viri are all designed!
Nope. It could be the oiginal viruses were designd and what we observe now is the result of mutations. Duh.
OM:
I don't see what alternatives there are to consider - you've ruled out evolution as the origin of HIV so what's left, logically, must be design.
Wrong again a didn't rule out "evolution" I aske you for evidence that blind, undiected processes can produce one from scratch.
At 1:51 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
What about applying this:
START
↓
CONTINGENCY? →No → Necessity (regularity/ law)
↓yes
COMPLEXITY? →No → Chance
↓yes
SPECIFICATION? →No → Chance
↓ yes
Design
to HIV?
Go for it.
At 1:53 PM,
Joe G said…
Hey asshole- if you have an arson investigation you have already applied the EF.
OM:
How so?
RotFLMAO!
Becaue you are investigting an ARSON.
OM:
Could you show how the EF is used in the various fields that you claim it (or something very close to it) is used?
Newton explained it, as have many others.
At 1:57 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Nope. It could be the oiginal viruses were designd and what we observe now is the result of mutations. Duh.
It could mean that, but then that would also mean believing in a literal garden of Eden. And as ID is not a religious concept, it can't be that can it? Duh.
However if HIV was originally designed then it's a very strange designer that would not build a "don't go all deadly" switch in.
And anyway, if what we observe now is the result of a harmless virus mutating then that disproves your point that mutation cannot create functional multi part systems, don't it?
After all, HIV infects millions of people, kills many of them. And it has some specialized machinery to do that. Machinery that was no present (why would it be) in the original virus. Machinery that modern medicine is mostly powerless against.
So, Joe, either HIV is designed or or arose via mutation. Neither option help you out.
Tell me, when you say "It could be the oiginal viruses were designd" what actual evidence do you have for that claim, other then it fits in with your worldview?
Wrong again a didn't rule out "evolution" I aske you for evidence that blind, undiected processes can produce one from scratch.
From scratch? What's the starting point? Dirt? That's your designers starting point, not mine.
You do know that Viri can spontaneously reassemble themselves if broken down into their component parts, right?
At 1:59 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Becaue you are investigting an ARSON.
No, you are investigating a fire that might be arson. That's what arson investigators do. They don't just get called to fires that have already been determined to be arson you know.
Tell me Joe, how is the EF used to determine that arson was the cause of a given fire rather then one of a thousand other causes?
At 2:02 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Nope. It could be the oiginal viruses were designd and what we observe now is the result of mutations. Duh.
And then you say
Go for it.
When I ask you to apply the EF to HIV. Perhaps you could simply paste in the process you used to determine design via the EF to the "original viruses" that you mention. Otherwise how do you know that they were in fact designed?
When were these "original viruses" designed Joe? How do you know?
Ya see Joe, it's not my claim that HIV (or the "original viri") was designed. It's your claim. As such I don't need to use the EF to determine design because I don't believe it was designed.
Joe, if it's not possible to give a worked out example of the usage of the EF for *anything at all* then what use is it to anybody?
At 2:11 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
It could mean that, but then that would also mean believing in a literal garden of Eden.
Nope.
OM:
However if HIV was originally designed then it's a very strange designer that would not build a "don't go all deadly" switch in.
Is that supposed to be some sort of refutaion?
OM:
And anyway, if what we observe now is the result of a harmless virus mutating then that disproves your point that mutation cannot create functional multi part systems, don't it?
How does it do that? And I said GENETIC ACCIDENTS- you don't have any evidence that all mutations are accidents.
OM:
So, Joe, either HIV is designed or or arose via mutation. Neither option help you out.
Only because you are a moron. However ID is OK with mutations.
OM:
Tell me, when you say "It could be the oiginal viruses were designd" what actual evidence do you have for that claim, other then it fits in with your worldview?
Well the total failure of your position to explain them plus they meet the design criteria.
Wrong again a didn't rule out "evolution" I aske you for evidence that blind, undiected processes can produce one from scratch.
From scratch? What's the starting point? Dirt? That's your designers starting point, not mine.
YOU don't have anything.
At 2:13 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
No, you are investigating a fire that might be arson. That's what arson investigators do.
FIRE INVESTIGATORS- and yo are still a moron.
Strnge how Newton supports my claim and that you ignore that.
At 2:14 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Joe, if it's not possible to give a worked out example of the usage of the EF for *anything at all* then what use is it to anybody?
Because Isaac Newton, et al., say that is the way to do science.
I will go with the actual scientists as opposed to an obvious wanker.
At 2:55 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
How does it do that? And I said GENETIC ACCIDENTS- you don't have any evidence that all mutations are accidents.
If mutations are not accidents then mutations are deliberate.
If mutations are deliberate and HIV was once harmless then the mutations that made it deadly were designed.
Well the total failure of your position to explain them plus they meet the design criteria.
What meets the design criteria Joe? These "original viri" you claim existed? How did you get a sample?
Does HIV meet the design criteria Joe?
Because Isaac Newton, et al., say that is the way to do science.
I will go with the actual scientists as opposed to an obvious wanker.
What, they say to use the EF? Sure they do Joe, sure they do....
You know at this point you could make me look like a right idiot if you were simply to link to a demonstration of the usage of the EF in any field at all. But you won't because you can't. But you'll never admit that will you?
At 2:57 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Baraminology is a creationist taxonomic system that classifies animals into groups called "created kinds" or "baramins" (pronounced with accent on second syllable) according to the account of creation in the book of Genesis and other parts of the Bible.
I'd call "creation" intervention. A rather big intervention. As big as they come in fact.
Hey asshole we were talking about EVOLUTION not ORIGINS. No intervention required for evolution in the Creation model nor ID.
And no one has ever observed genetic accidents accumulating in such a way as to construct useful, functional multi-part systems.
OM:
Except they have.
Liar
Lenski's Citrate experement for on.
No useful, functional multi-part system was constructed.
Another would be the evolution of HIV, it got better and better at infecting humans. I'd call that a useful system, from the point of view of the virus anyway.
What YOU call it is irrelevant. What actually was "constructed"?
You go first- show us how necessity and our chance can produce any virus from scratch.
OM:
It's called evolution.
Any evidence for that?
Viri evolved.
From what?
Do you dispute even that now?
How can I dispute your vague, goal-post moving claims?
I thought ID was not "anti evolution"?
it isn't. You are just too stupid to understand that even though I spelled it out for all of you evotards.
I have already blogged about what I would have taught.
Would have?
What I would HAVE taught as in what I would have the teachers teach/ say/ present.
I thought that you had already run several "intelligent design awareness days".
You are just freaking clueless- That hs NOTHING to do with what I would have taught. That is just for information because there are so many lying freaks like you out there feeding kids misinformation.
Also when/ if someone atheist steps in and goes all evotard on me I will have hundreds, even thousands of witnesses to support my position.
At 3:01 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
If mutations are not accidents then mutations are deliberate.
What the fuck is your problem? I have been down this road already- MANY TIMES.
Dr Spetner wrote a book on it.
You really think that your total freaking ignorance of your opponents and scienc means something. And I can't deal with that anymore
Because Isaac Newton, et al., say that is the way to do science.
I will go with the actual scientists as opposed to an obvious wanker.
What, they say to use the EF?
The EF is the process to go about doing what Newton said- dude you are too fucking stupid. Go somewhere and bother someone else.
At 3:04 PM,
Joe G said…
"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." Isaac Newton
I find it hilarious that OM cannot understand that the EF is the process used to do exactly that.
At 3:04 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
It is all in there. Transcription, translation, alternative splicng, proof-reading, error-correction- all in there alredy.
I believe you'll find that the phrase "Intelligent Design" or "Intelligent Designer" does not appear in any such paper. Funny that.
All the things us listed, plus more.
Saying it don't make it so. Why do those things make ID look better Joe? When current theory fails, and it does, nobody turns to Intelligent Design for the answers.
What would YOU do?
The same thing that tens of thousands of people are doing right now. Science.
Bullshit. Too bad you don't have any evidence to support your claim.
My evidence is your lack of citations. Just like my evidence for your inability to demonstrate the usage of the EF is your inability to demonstrate the usage of the EF.
And that alone means we are loking a a totally differnt type of biology. So it means a lot.
You keep saying that, but you've not proven life is designed. So you don't know that.
Giveu 150 years and all the resources evotards have and unlike you we will produce reults.
You had over 2000 already. And the project failed. All the first geologists were creationists you know, out there looking for evidence of the global flood. The evidence soon changed their minds.
Except, as I have proven, design is not anti-evolution. Populastions could have been designed to evolve. And that is a better explanation than accumulations of genetic accidents.
Designed to evolve into killers?
And there is that world again, "could". Could have this, could have that. Subconsciously you know your position is all conjecture and sometimes it shows.
ID is not anti-evolution. ID is OK with DESIGNED TO EVOLVE-> EVOLUTION BY DESIGN. Just as I have been posting for years.
ID is OK with lots of things including direct intervention by the designer. That's the problem. It's OK with too much.
What is ID not OK with Joe? I.E. What entailments does ID provide? What predictions does it make? If we find X, ID is disproved. What is X Joe?
It appears that genetic accidents cannot accumulate in such a way as to give rise to useful, functional multi-part systems.
And how do you square that with "designed to evolve"? Why bother to design something to evolve if it cannot evolve a useful, functional multi-part system?
And when were the original "designed to evolve" life forms created Joe?
10 years ago?
10,000 years ago?
6,000 years ago?
A million?
When.
IOW it appears very limited.
Apparently it's so powerful that the best way a designer could think of to keep it's creations going was to design them to evolve.
Yet the designers great solution is according to you "very limited".
Yet HIV can evolve from a harmless virus into a killer using that very limited process.
Your position is confused Joe.
At 3:05 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
I find it hilarious that OM cannot understand that the EF is the process used to do exactly that.
Then demonstrate it already! What's stopping you?
At 3:07 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Could you just clarify, where did HIV come from?
You deny it could have evolved.
You deny it was designed.
So how did it arise?
At 3:12 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
I believe you'll find that the phrase "Intelligent Design" or "Intelligent Designer" does not appear in any such paper. Funny that.
Nothing in any papers that supports you postion eother you moron- not one word about accumulating geetic accidents doing something.
OM:
Saying it don't make it so. Why do those things make ID look better Joe?
I have alreay blogged about it- If you cannot keep up then go away.
When current theory fails, and it does, nobody turns to Intelligent Design for the answers.
And you are proud of your stubborn ignorance.
...designed to evolve...
OM:
Designed to evolve into killers?
Not require. Shit happens. Just s I have been saying for years.
OM:
ID is OK with lots of things including direct intervention by the designer. That's the problem. It's OK with too much.
And your position is OK with shit it cannot come close to supporting.
ID allows the evidence and science to lead the way.
OM:
What is ID not OK with Joe?
I have already blogged about that too.
OM you have serious fucking willful ignornce issues.
Until you can demonstrate some understnding of what you are arguing against you are not welcome here.
At 3:14 PM,
Joe G said…
I find it hilarious that OM cannot understand that the EF is the process used to do exactly that.
OM:
Then demonstrate it already!
Get an education already! That is science 101
At 3:16 PM,
Joe G said…
OM:
Could you just clarify, where did HIV come from?
Don't know.
M:
You deny it could have evolved.
Liar- I said it could have evolvd from some other virus.
OM:
You deny it was designed.
Did I? It is not a requirement that is was designed.
At 4:42 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Get an education already! That is science 101
So Dembski invented science?
Sure he did Joe.
Allow me to quote Dembski
The key step in formulating Intelligent Design as a scientific theory is to delineate a method for detecting design. Such a method exists, and in fact, we use it implicitly all the time. The method takes the form of a three-stage Explanatory Filter. Given something we think might be designed, we refer it to the filter. If it successfully passes all three stages of the filter, then we are warranted asserting it is designed. Roughly speaking the filter asks three questions and in the following order: (1) Does a law explain it? (2) Does chance explain it? (3) Does design explain it?
Nothing to do with Newton, science or anything else.
The EF is (supposedly) a tool that determines if a given thing is designed or not.
Yet you seem unable to actually use it do to that and are reduced to claiming Newton used it.
So, Joe, if strings of random numbers indicate design can you run a string of such numbers through the explanatory filter and have it determine design then?
At 4:43 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Liar- I said it could have evolvd from some other virus.
And where did that virus come from?
And how could it have changed from a harmless virus into a deadly killer with only a very limited process, evolution, to enable that?
At 5:16 PM,
Joe G said…
Liar- I said it could have evolvd from some other virus.
OM:
And where did that virus come from?
As I said there isn't any evidence that blind, undiectdprocesses can construct a virus and it meets te design criteria...
OM:
And how could it have changed from a harmless virus into a deadly killer with only a very limited process, evolution, to enable that?
Apparently it didn't take very much.
At 5:23 PM,
Joe G said…
Get an education already! That is science 101
OM:
So Dembski invented science?
Is THAT your problem? You think Dembski invented the EF?
Even Dembski said it is standard operating procedure you moron. And that is based on what Newton et al. have said.
OM:
Nothing to do with Newton, science or anything else.
I just showed yo how it relates to Newton and science you moron.
Are you really that freaking stupid?
OM:
The EF is (supposedly) a tool that determines if a given thing is designed or not.
And it does so just as Newton stated.
OM:
Yet you seem unable to actually use it do to that and are reduced to claiming Newton used it.
Newton is the one who made the rule.
That you are too stupid to understand how that rule applies to the EF is your problem, not mine.
OM:
So, Joe, if strings of random numbers indicate design...
It indicates agency involvement. YOU and ih have both admitted that.
can you run a string of such numbers through the explanatory filter and have it determine design then?
You have serious issues....
At 5:30 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Apparently it didn't take very much.
What do you base that on?
At 5:34 PM,
Joe G said…
Apparently it didn't take very much.
OM:
What do you base that on?
Science- IOW do the research you moron.
At 5:46 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Science- IOW do the research you moron.
Science has nothing to say about "original viri" that were "created" by an "intelligent designer".
So, how do you suggest I go about researching your claim that HIV when originally created was harmless but then somehow turned into a killer?
Where do you suggest I start?
At 5:53 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
As I said there isn't any evidence that blind, undiectdprocesses can construct a virus and it meets te design criteria...
Any given virus meets the design criteria.
HIV is a virus.
HIV was designed.
Where is the flaw in the logic Joe?
At 5:55 PM,
Joe G said…
Science- IOW do the research you moron.
OM
Science has nothing to say about "original viri" that were "created" by an "intelligent designer".
Your response has nothing to do with what we were talking about.
You can't even follow your own dialog. You are a pathetic loser.
At 6:12 PM,
CBD said…
Joe
Your response has nothing to do with what we were talking about.
It's *all* we've been talking about Joe. Reread the thread!
Each and every claim is your own.
At 6:13 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Apparently it didn't take very much.
What does "it" in that sentence refer to then?
If it's not about what it takes to turn HIV from a harmless virus into a killer then what is "it"?
At 6:17 PM,
Joe G said…
As I said there isn't any evidence that blind, undiectdprocesses can construct a virus and it meets te design criteria...
OM:
Any given virus meets the design criteria.
Yet any given virus didn't need to be the way it is via design.
Accidents still happen, even in a design scenario.
At 6:19 PM,
Joe G said…
Your response has nothing to do with what we were talking about.
OM:
It's *all* we've been talking about Joe. Reread the thread!
You are an imbecile. You can't even follow your own dialog.
You have serious issues.
At 6:20 PM,
Joe G said…
Apparently it didn't take very much.
OM:
What does "it" in that sentence refer to then?
If it's not about what it takes to turn HIV from a harmless virus into a killer then what is "it"?
That is what "it" refers to. Yet YOU started in on the origin. We were talking evolution.
At 6:23 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
We were talking evolution.
What would it take for a harmless virus to mutate into a deadly killer like HIV?
Is that within the "edge" of evolution?
At 6:27 PM,
CBD said…
Joe,
Yet YOU started in on the origin.
But you said this
Yet any given virus didn't need to be the way it is via design.
So the origin of all viri is design but somehow that's not relevant?
If HIV is designed then we're taking about a totally different biology, you do realize that right?
So it's of the utmost importance if HIV was designed or not. That alone means we are loking a a totally differnt type of biology. So it means a lot.
Different origin = totally different type of biology.
At 7:26 PM,
Joe G said…
We were talking evolution.
OM:
What would it take for a harmless virus to mutate into a deadly killer like HIV?
Obviously not the construction of new useful, functional multi-part systems.
At 7:28 PM,
Joe G said…
Yet any given virus didn't need to be the way it is via design.
OM:
So the origin of all viri is design but somehow that's not relevant?
I didn't say the origin of all viruses is design. You are twisted and demented.
Go away- you are not welcome here.
Come back if you ever have something to add to the discussion.
At 7:43 PM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
IA: "This is probably a waste of time but I am going to see if I can drag a materialist kicking and screaming into science."
OM: "Perhaps you could do that by giving an example of the EF in action?"
Thanks for proving my statement right. I never said anything about the EF", so I dont know why that question is being asked of me. I dont know about what Joe is refering to as the EF, so you should ask him, not me, for an example.
I am talking about the scientific method. And my question to you was a great example.
Did you not answer it because you didnt know or because you felt I owed you an answer to something I had never mentioned (EF)? Or is there some other reason you would not answer?
At 1:12 AM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
Is nobody able to answer my fairly straightforward question? OM made some sort of dodging excuse, but noone at all will venture an answer? It is the 8th post in the thread. Simple as it gets. Easy multiple choice. Joe? Rich?
OM, you seem to expect a doctoral thesis on a blog over such in-depth topics as the formation of the eye. That happened 240 million years ago. Wouldnt it be helpful to start with direct observations of how life forms now? If you cant attempt an answer to my question you can never hope to understand anything about science.
At 1:19 AM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
OM, you can make the bald, unsupported statement that you dont believe evolution needs intelligent agency, but at some point you have to actually attempt to show some explanation of something.
All scientific evidence shows that there has never been any aspect of life that can do anything whatsoever without intelligent agency. Nothing whatsoever has ever been explained by a materialist.
And you are certainly not breaking that trend.
At 1:38 AM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
OM, you ask how HIV came to be. Like any other organism, speciation of HIV was caused by intelligent genetics, intelligent reproduction and other intelligent agency. The virus has literally thousands of functional, interdependent structural elements, so your brilliant luck theory need not apply.
You claim that it has to be random chaos as a cause because it would take a "strange designer" to create it, considering that it hurts and kills humans.
Ummm, guns hurt and kill humans, and they were designed, were they not? Why would you suggest that harmfulness to another species refutes intelligent agency? Lots of organisms, including us, kill other organisms.
The design inference is based on probablistics, not your psychoanalyzation of strangeness.
The intelligent agency may not really care to look out for your interests.
At 1:47 AM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
OM, there is but one simple way to refute intelligent agency. Try to find signs of random mess. Good luck with that. Life is the absence of randomness, with nothing ever detected but intelligent formations and movements. You must show quadrillions of odd, messy and useless phenotypes for any one novel functional trait.
Let us know you make out with that.
At 5:32 PM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
If you are incapable of examining data and coming to a most plausible conclusion based on the evidence, then you are incapable of science.
How sad and yet telling that none of you science bloggers were able to answer my question in the 8th post of the thread. I tried to make it easy and based on irrefutable modern day observations. Like a child teetering on training wheels, I had hoped for an inkling of scientific aptitude from someone.
I will answer it myself, but I am embarassed for you.
At 6:11 PM,
IntelligentAnimation said…
Referring to my question in the 8th post of this thread, neural pathways do indeed form in parts of the body, such as our hands just as they form in our brains when we have repetitive thoughts.
So the question is why did they form in the experimental group, but not the control group? First we rule out luck quite easily. Luck would be defeated even if it happened only once, but this test is predictable and repeatable. At some point even the most brick-headed luck theorist has to run and hide when we keep repeating the test with the same results.
Some claim that all physical formations of matter in living things are dictated by genetics. Joe has suggested that the genetic code is not adequate to explain all phenotypes and I agree. How would a genetic code know in advance about ping pong? How could these nucleotides, which are just chemicals in a molecule, cause such specific placement of matter?
They cant, especially if you are still living under the belief that genetic mutations are "errors". In that case, genetic cause is just another failed luck theory.
That brings us to the darling of the Darwinist dolts: "selection". Supposedly lack-of-death causes life, right? Wasnt selection your excuse for the "illusion" of intelligent agency, the failure of your math and the absence of evidence for random chaos?
Turns out nobody ever died from non-functional neural pathway formation, let alone being killed for losing a ping pong game. We could have hundreds of useless neural pathways without dying, but there are none and never have been. Selection, as usual, has nothing to do with the formation of any phenotypes whatsoever.
Did the nerve cells form purposefully, then, by intent, as all living things do? We see them forming when needed, but only when needed. We see them forming precisely where needed and only where needed. Clearly, they form according to a purpose. Purpose indicates intelligent intent.
Besides, we have already eliminated chance and its unintentional matter movement, which leaves us with intentional matter movement. So yes, intelligent agency is the most plausible explanation for the formation of matter and the flow of electrons within it.
Could there be some other answer nobody has ever thought of?
Good luck with that, but we have no such non-explanatory escape clause in science. We remain open-minded to future developments, but in the here and now, the reality is that intelligence is the only plausible explanation for this clearly purposeful formation as observed.
Glad I could help.
Post a Comment
<< Home