How to Test and falsify Intelligent Design- a Repost
-
Seeing that Kevin the retard McCarthy is still choking on his ignorance of genetics and wants positive evidence for ID, I figure we can start with the basics- again:
Yes, Intelligent Design is both testable and falsifiable. Intelligent Design relies on Newton's First Rule, meaning agencies are only added when REQUIRED. Therefor to refute ID and any given design inference all one has to do is step up and demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can account for it. IOW all evotards have to do to stop ID cold is to actually step up and A) produce a tyestable hypothesis for their position and B) produce positive, supporting evidence.
However all evotards can do is cry foul and say "blind, undirected processes is a strawman!"- yet it is a given that natural selection, genetic drift and HGT are all blind, purposeless processes and all mutations are undirected-> that is given the current theory of evolution. IOW evotards are so clueless they don't even understand the theory they try to defend!
So there you have it ole ignorant and cowardly evotards- just start supporting your position and ID will go away.
How is ID tested? As in positive evidence?
1- See above as the way to the design inference is THROUGH the blind watchmaker
2- The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ' s Black Box: "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”
So if nature, operating freely cannot account for it AND it meets that criteria, some agency is required and we infer design (or at least agency involvement).
The prediction is Kevin won't understand any of that because he is scientifically illiterate
Seeing that Kevin the retard McCarthy is still choking on his ignorance of genetics and wants positive evidence for ID, I figure we can start with the basics- again:
Yes, Intelligent Design is both testable and falsifiable. Intelligent Design relies on Newton's First Rule, meaning agencies are only added when REQUIRED. Therefor to refute ID and any given design inference all one has to do is step up and demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can account for it. IOW all evotards have to do to stop ID cold is to actually step up and A) produce a tyestable hypothesis for their position and B) produce positive, supporting evidence.
However all evotards can do is cry foul and say "blind, undirected processes is a strawman!"- yet it is a given that natural selection, genetic drift and HGT are all blind, purposeless processes and all mutations are undirected-> that is given the current theory of evolution. IOW evotards are so clueless they don't even understand the theory they try to defend!
So there you have it ole ignorant and cowardly evotards- just start supporting your position and ID will go away.
How is ID tested? As in positive evidence?
1- See above as the way to the design inference is THROUGH the blind watchmaker
2- The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Leheigh University, puts it in his book Darwin ' s Black Box: "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.”
So if nature, operating freely cannot account for it AND it meets that criteria, some agency is required and we infer design (or at least agency involvement).
The prediction is Kevin won't understand any of that because he is scientifically illiterate
posted by Joe G @ 6:09 PM
10 Comments:
At 6:41 PM,
Joe G said…
Prediction fulfilled...
At 10:09 AM,
OgreMkV said…
So. Still no actual evidence that supports ID.
But we both new that.
Even if your notion was testable (it's not)... no one has actually done anything along those lines. Even if someone had done some research along these lines (no one has), it wouldn't be positive supporting evidence for ID anyway.
So, my prediction is also correct. You, indeed no one, can provide even one bit (in the literal sense) of positive supporting evidence for ID.
Go ahead and meltdown now. It's OK. Someday, someone might have the courage to test ID, but it won't be you, Dembski, Behe, Meyer, Sternberg or any of the other "scientists" that support ID.
At 11:15 AM,
Joe G said…
And yet I have blogged about the actual evidence that supports ID. OTOH all you can do is act like a little ignorant child.
Behe and Meyer have written about the evidence. The evidence is in peer-review.
Do you really think that your ignorance is some sort of refutation?
Someday you will have a clue, but obviously today is not that day.
As for your prediction- what was that? That you can ignore everything I post and prattle on regardless?
Yes, you fulfilled that in spades.
BTW it won't be you doing aything to advance science, that's for sure.
At 11:20 AM,
Joe G said…
Intelligent Design Tested and Confirmed, every day.
OTOH Kevin the cowardly equivocator doesn't understand evidence and thinks his ignorance is a refutation of what I say.
You, indeed no one, can provide even one bit (in the literal sense) of positive supporting evidence for blind and undirected processes (mainstream's position) constructing multi-protein machinery.
All you can do is your typical cowardly meltdown of "that's a strawman" even after I provide ample evidence that it is not.
At 11:26 AM,
Joe G said…
Then we have evidence for Intelligent Design in biology textbooks part 1, and evidence for Intelligent Design in biology textbooks part 2
But all that is moot because Kevin is too ignorant to A) understand the debate and B) understand evidence.
At 11:47 AM,
Joe G said…
Oops forgot my prediction:
Kevin will not address what I posted except to dismiss it by saying either it isn't evidence or it isn't evidence for ID even though it matches the criteria. Ya see Kevin is too stupid to understand the OP of this thread- notice how he didn't respond to it with his comment. But he responded to his own ignorance.
One thing is clear- Kevin's cowardice is just evidence he is a coward. It is not a refutation of anything I have posted. Kevin has never refuted anything I have posted- ever. He is too stupid to do that...
At 9:28 AM,
Joe G said…
The ATP Synthase is a system that consists of two subsystems-> one for the flow of protons down an electrochemical gradient from the exterior to the interior and the other (a rotary engine) that generates ATP from ADP using the energy liberated by proton flow. These two processes are totally unrelated from a purely physiochemical perspective- meaning there isn't any general principle of physics nor chemistry by which these two processes have anything to do with each other. Yet here they are.
How is this evidence for Intelligent Design? Cause and effect relationships as in designers often take two totally unrelated systems and intergrate them into one. The ordering of separate subsystems to produce a specific effect that neither can do alone. And those subsystems are composed of the ordering of separate components to achieve a specified function.
ATP synthase is not reducible to chance and necessity and also meets the criteria of design.
ATP synthase- all experiments point to design
At 9:42 AM,
OgreMkV said…
Please provide the evidence where you have proven that no non-intelligent system could develop such a system.
That's YOUR requirement. You said that if no natural cause could explain it. What you MUST do then, is to prove that no natural system much be able to generate it.
First, that's an impossible requirement, which is why it's not science and it's not evidence. I don't expect you to understand that though. If the only way to prove that pink unicorns don't exist anywhere in the universe, is to travel to every single planet, moon, nebula, etc and examine it for pink unicorns, then it can never be proven that pink unicorns don't exist somewhere in the universe.
ID is exactly the same and this notion has been promoted as such for almost 20 years, which makes it just hilarious. By making a requirement that natural systems can't evolve something as the basis for intelligent design, you are saying that intelligent design can never be supported. Because you don't know how things evolved (or even if they were designed or evolved).
Prove to us that no evolutionary system EVER could evolve ATP synthase. Go ahead, it should take you several hundred billion years and several hundred billion planet sized labs.
Just saying "it can't evolve" or "it's too complex" or anything is just that... saying. It doesn't mean anything.
There is no evidence here. There is just assertion.
At 10:56 AM,
Joe G said…
And another prediction fulfilled- thanks Kevin.
Please provide the evidence where you have proven that no non-intelligent system could develop such a system.
Science is not about proving, dumbass. And all you have to do is demonstrate non-intelligent processes could do it, but you can't because your position has nothing.
You said that if no natural cause could explain it
Dumbass liar. No blind and undirected processes can explain i- as evidenced by the lack of peer-review for succh a thing.
Prove to us that no evolutionary system EVER could evolve ATP synthase.
Your continued cowardly equivocation is duly noted.
Also, moron, your position does not have any positive evidence, as evidenced by your whining.
But anyway all the evidence I prosented fits the criteria I presented.
And all cowardly Kevin can do is choke on it.
And thanks for admitting that your position has absolutely NOTHING
At 11:01 AM,
Joe G said…
So Kevin chokes on the evidence, as usual, and admits his position doesn't have any.
It is a good day...
Post a Comment
<< Home