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 09, 2013

Elizabeth Liddle, Ignorant and Proud of it

Elizabeth Liddle thinks she is some sort of scientific authority. I say that because she always just baldly asserts shit and thinks that alone is evidence. In response to what Eric Anderson posted over on UD, Lizzie posted:
This is really quite simple:
1. Is x designed?
2. Who designed x?
I trust you can see that these are separate questions and that it is possible to answer the first without ever answering, or even asking for that matter, the second.
(Lizzie) No, they are not separate questions, Eric. It is the fundamental error of ID to think that they are. This is why E-prime is so useful in rooting out such errors. Translating into E-prime:
1. Did somebody or something design x?
2. Who designed x?
My first is logically identical to Eric’s first, but written in E-Prime we can see that the questions are not separate at all, but intimately related. To answer the first we need to consider the second, and to answer the second, we need to consider the first.

That is total bullshit, Lizzie. To answer the first all we need is knowledge of cause and effect relationships. And to even consider the second we must answer the first. No one looks for a criminal unless there is a sign of a crime. Yes, we do consider the second but only AFTER answering the first. Thankfully you do not conduct investigations that depend on design inferneces.
This is why science is iterative.
The explanatory filter is iterative, Lizzie. And it is a process mandated by scientific investigation-> see Newton's Four Rules
This is why ID is not science.
And yet we arrive at any given design inference via an iterative process that requires knowledge gained via observations, experiments and experiences. OTOH all your position has are bald assertions. Not one experiment demonstrates that unguided evolution can construct multi-protein configurations. Lenski's 50,000+ generations have failed to produce anything beyond the use of one existing protein in an O2 rich envirnment. Why don’t YOU lead by example Lizzie? Why don’t you tell us the iterative process(es) used to determine that the diversity of living organisms evolved via unguided, purposeless, blind, mindless processes. And then tell us why these processes do not live up to expectations when they are directly observed. For example after more than 50,000 generations Lenski’s bacteria still haven’t developed any new proteins, let alone new protein-to-protein binding sites. Present to us these alleged testable hypotheses and predictions borne from darwinian processes. You keep saying that we are doing it wrong yet you cannot show us how you guys do it correctly. Why is that?


Post a Comment

<< Home