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

Saturday, May 16, 2015

The Positive Case for Intelligent Design

-
The criteria for inferring design in biology is, as Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh 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.”

He goes on to say: ” Might there be some as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nonetheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work. Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers.”

40 Comments:

  • At 3:11 PM, Blogger Judge Rez said…

    Good article!
    While you're at it, you can first watch this fact-free rant video
    [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzLBWPjr1pw]
    and read the first comment . That's by me, of course. (Same Username)
    Maybe you can make a post on the gullibility of evolutionists ?

     
  • At 1:24 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    So Dr Dembski's metric with p(T|H) and phi-s(T) was a wasted effort?

    And there's the question: how do you prove a negative, i.e. that unguided, natural processes could not have done something?

    Also remember that a vast majority of biologists do not agree that an irreducibly complex biological structure has been found.

     
  • At 11:08 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So Dr Dembski's metric with p(T|H) and phi-s(T) was a wasted effort?

    It is to morons like you. However everyone knows that no one can provide a P(T|H) for ATP synthase, a bacterial flagellum or any multi-protein complex.

    And there's the question: how do you prove a negative, i.e. that unguided, natural processes could not have done something?

    Evidence and knowledge, that's how archaeology and forensic science does it.

    Also remember that a vast majority of biologists do not agree that an irreducibly complex biological structure has been found.

    That is your uneducated opinion, anyway.

     
  • At 1:10 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    It is to morons like you. However everyone knows that no one can provide a P(T|H) for ATP synthase, a bacterial flagellum or any multi-protein complex.

    Funny Dr Dembski spent so much time developing something that was never intended to be used.

    Evidence and knowledge, that's how archaeology and forensic science does it.

    Except they don't do it that way do they? Despite your insistence.

    That is your uneducated opinion, anyway.

    That's the opinion of a vast majority of trained biologists. And, remember, at the Dover trial it was the judgement of the court that Dr Behe hadn't proved his case.

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

    Funny Dr Dembski spent so much time developing something that was never intended to be used.

    Moron, it is used to prove your position has nothing.

    Except they don't do it that way do they?

    Of course they do.

    That's the opinion of a vast majority of trained biologists.

    That's just your uneducated opinion. You don't know what the vast majority of biologists say.

    And, remember, at the Dover trial it was the judgement of the court that Dr Behe hadn't proved his case.

    The court wasn't in any position to make that decision. And Behe proved the court totally fucked up.

     
  • At 6:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    When archaeologists find something they think is an artifact, if someone else can demonstrate that geological processes can account for it then the artifact inference is scuttled. The same thing goes for forensic science- an assumed murder goes away when another examiner demonstrates natural causes were sufficient. Assumed arson goes away as soon as nature can account for the fire.

    So obviously they all do it the way I said.

     
  • At 5:11 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    When archaeologists find something they think is an artifact, if someone else can demonstrate that geological processes can account for it then the artifact inference is scuttled. The same thing goes for forensic science- an assumed murder goes away when another examiner demonstrates natural causes were sufficient. Assumed arson goes away as soon as nature can account for the fire.

    So obviously they all do it the way I said.


    Obviously there is some truth in what you say but, again, the basic procedure does not follow the ID proscribed design detection procedure.

    It's clear you haven't really spent time with archaeologists and forensic scientists. The way you present the logical inference trail is . . . highly affected by your ID leanings. Your need to prove a point.

    What you really need is strong, positive, physical, non-controversial evidence of a designer.

    Also it would be good if you could:

    Find evidence for the programming you claim must exist in the cell which affects/guides mutations.

    Explain how such programming is coded and stored.

    Explain how such programming influences development. This does NOT require the actual mechanism' just an explanation of how it might work.

    A rough timeline of when design what implemented. That should be pretty easy Really.

    Have you got even a beginning of those?

     
  • At 5:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Obviously there is some truth in what you say but, again, the basic procedure does not follow the ID proscribed design detection procedure.

    Everything I said is true, asshole. And ID follows that basic procedure

    It's clear you haven't really spent time with archaeologists and forensic scientists.

    It's clear that you are an ignorant asshole.

    What you really need is strong, positive, physical, non-controversial evidence of a designer.

    Have it. All you can do is deny it exists without any reasoning.

    Find evidence for the programming you claim must exist in the cell which affects/guides mutations.

    Found and presented.

    Explain how such programming is coded and stored.

    Explain how such programming influences development. This does NOT require the actual mechanism' just an explanation of how it might work.

    A rough timeline of when design what implemented.


    Not one of those has anything to do with ID. All are after ID is accepted and people want the other questions answered.

     
  • At 2:03 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Everything I said is true, asshole. And ID follows that basic procedure

    Show me a paper which shows a design detection methodology being used on various biological forms.

    It's clear that you are an ignorant asshole.

    I'm sorry but you clearly haven't. You say you've done some forensic type work but the way you discuss it makes it sound like it's been mostly from the comfort of your armchair.

    Have it. All you can do is deny it exists without any reasoning.

    Because all you've got is some biological structures that you say look designed to you but they are all highly disputed. So, I'm suggesting, that you find some more, hard, physical evidence. The ID community hasn't come up with anything new in the last 10 years!!

    Found and presented.

    No, you've read a couple of books that make an argument but there is no physical evidence. Find that.

    Not one of those has anything to do with ID. All are after ID is accepted and people want the other questions answered.

    If you found some more physical evidence then you'd convince more people. You won't convince anyone if you just keep repeating the same things over and over especially when the claims you've been making are widely disputed. The ID community needs to find something new, some real hard physical evidence.

     
  • At 6:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Show me a paper which shows a design detection methodology being used on various biological forms.

    Show me a paper which shows an unguided evolutionary methodology being used on various biological forms. Asshole.

    What prevents design detection methodology from being used in biology?

    I'm sorry but you clearly haven't.

    You are sorry and you are an ignorant asshole. You clearly haven't done any investigations, Jerad.

    You say you've done some forensic type work but the way you discuss it makes it sound like it's been mostly from the comfort of your armchair.

    That is your uneducated opinion. Strange that you can only say shit and can't actually make a case. Coward.

    Because all you've got is some biological structures that you say look designed to you but they are all highly disputed.

    Actually the science says they are designed, moron. And no one has an alternative, viable explanation. P(T|H) is absent for all multi-protein configurations.

    So, I'm suggesting, that you find some more, hard, physical evidence. The ID community hasn't come up with anything new in the last 10 years!!

    We don't need anything new. Your position has had anything in over 150 years, asshole.

    No, you've read a couple of books that make an argument but there is no physical evidence.

    ATP synthase; bacterial flagella; immune system; transcription, translation, genetic code, spliceosome, editing, proof-reading, error-correction and much, much more, moron.

    The problem is you and your complete inability to assess evidence.

    If you found some more physical evidence then you'd convince more people.

    Somer people, like you, are impervious to evidence.

    You won't convince anyone if you just keep repeating the same things over and over especially when the claims you've been making are widely disputed.

    Disputed? Only disputed by personal incredulity, and no one cares about that. When someone comes up with a valid dispute we will take it seriously.

     
  • At 3:55 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Show me a paper which shows an unguided evolutionary methodology being used on various biological forms. Asshole.

    There are thousands of such papers. You, being a merchant of doubt, deny all of them so I won't bother doing the work to post links for you to decry. You are not attempting to participate in a dialogue in good faith. You are a denialist.

    You are sorry and you are an ignorant asshole. You clearly haven't done any investigations, Jerad.

    This from a person who cannot present any academic work backing up his claims.

    That is your uneducated opinion. Strange that you can only say shit and can't actually make a case. Coward.

    As before, I'm realising how pointless it is to attempt to carry on a real dialogue with you. You never seriously any viewpoint with which you already decided is incorrect.

    Actually the science says they are designed, moron. And no one has an alternative, viable explanation. P(T|H) is absent for all multi-protein configurations.

    No, the science does NOT say that. Only a very few denialists like you say that. If P(T|H) is so useless then why did Dr Dembski include it in his metric?

    We don't need anything new. Your position has had anything in over 150 years, asshole.

    You mean like the discovery of the structure of DNA? Or the discernment of sexual selection? Or genetic drift? Or even Mendelevan genetics? You don't keep up on the research and you don't understand it.

    ATP synthase; bacterial flagella; immune system; transcription, translation, genetic code, spliceosome, editing, proof-reading, error-correction and much, much more, moron.

    Those are not evidence for design, those are phenomena that you claim could not have arisen via unguided processes. And you say you know how science works.

    The problem is you and your complete inability to assess evidence.

    You don't actually 'do' any science so it's time to start ignoring your claims about it.

    Somer people, like you, are impervious to evidence.

    See previous comment.

    Disputed? Only disputed by personal incredulity, and no one cares about that. When someone comes up with a valid dispute we will take it seriously.

    Again, you are not a scientists, you don't do research or publish research, you've had none of your ideas evaluated by peers, you even have a hard time stating clearly what you do assert.

    Bottom line: you are just a nutter.

     
  • At 4:34 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    There are thousands of such papers.

    Liar

    This from a person who cannot present any academic work backing up his claims

    Nice projection

    No, the science does NOT say that.

    Yes, it does. You are just ignorant of science.

    ATP synthase; bacterial flagella; immune system; transcription, translation, genetic code, spliceosome, editing, proof-reading, error-correction and much, much more, moron.

    Those are not evidence for design,

    Of course they are. They are unexplained by unguided processes and fit the criteria, ie the pattern, of design.

    You're not a scientist, Jerad. You don't even have what it takes to conduct an investigation nor assess evidence.

    You are just an ignorant piece-of-shit whose only hope is future research may someday find support for unguided evolution.

     
  • At 3:33 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Liar

    There are thousands of papers. You choose to believe in something that hasn't been tested or even properly proposed: guided mutations. What is the hypothesis? How was it tested? Where are the academic publications?

    Nice projection

    It's true though. You have no academic work to show that upholds guided mutations or evolution. And you cannot run away from that your whole life. Well, you can but you look a fool for not at least admitting that fact.

    Yes, it does. You are just ignorant of science.

    Well, the science and the scientists who do the actual work and publish disagree with you. And that's thousands and thousands of people much more educated and experienced than you are.

    Of course they are. They are unexplained by unguided processes and fit the criteria, ie the pattern, of design.

    You choose to think those things had to be designed when you have no academic work to back up that belief. That is the truth.

    You're not a scientist, Jerad. You don't even have what it takes to conduct an investigation nor assess evidence.

    You're not a scientist and what you say is laughed at by real scientists. And that's thousands and thousands of them.

    You are just an ignorant piece-of-shit whose only hope is future research may someday find support for unguided evolution.

    And you're not hoping future research will save your ideas? You can't point to any physical mechanism that can carry off the guiding you claim happens. You can't say where the mechanism is, how it's encoded, how it affects development. YOu haven' got any academic work to point to that supports your beliefs. You haven't even got a hypothesis on the table. You have beliefs and some half-thought out ideas. No publications, no research, no experiments, no testable hypothesis.

    And when people point that out you turn into a nasty school-yard bully who thinks profanity and abuse win.

     
  • At 9:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad, You are a lying bitch. There aren't any papers that support unguided evolution. And you cannot find one that explicitly supports it.

    You have no academic work to show that upholds unguided mutations. Yours is all ignorance.

    Well, the science and the scientists who do the actual work and publish disagree with you.

    The science agrees and those who disagree don't have a viable alternative.

    You choose to think those things had to be designed when you have no academic work to back up that belief.

    All the peer-reviewed work backs me up, asshole. Yours doesn't even have a methodology nor hypotheses. At least ID has that.

    You're not a scientist and what you say is laughed at by real scientists.

    And I laugh at you are your cowardly bluffing.

    And you're not hoping future research will save your ideas?

    All research to date supports my ideas, Jerad. And all you can do is try to handwave it all away because you are an ignorant coward.

    BTW ID has a testable hypothesis, asshole.

     
  • At 12:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    “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.”

    Science has uncovered many biological structures, systems and subsystems that meet that criteria. And not one has a P(T|H).

     
  • At 12:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But I could be wrong- please produce a testable hypothesis for unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution producing ATP synthase and I will post a huge apology to you, Jerad.

    Elizabeth Liddle says that models are great so a model of unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution producing ATP synthase would be awesome.

     
  • At 12:27 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Jerad, You are a lying bitch. There aren't any papers that support unguided evolution. And you cannot find one that explicitly supports it.

    Then show us the academic work that supports your views. Show us a design detection methodology in practice for a biological system. Show us some work that supports your (poorly defined) notion of front-loading. Show us some work that lends credence to there being some physical mechanism in the cell which can guide mutations. Tell us a plausible way such a mechanism might be encoded and how it can affect development.

    You never get around to answering such queries. You claim to have a winning hand but you never show it. You can't win without a reveal.

    You have no academic work to show that upholds unguided mutations. Yours is all ignorance.

    Nothing you accept you mean. Not the same thing.

    The science agrees and those who disagree don't have a viable alternative.

    But you will never say what your alternative is. You can't back up your claims to have something better. It's all just bluff and bluster.

    All the peer-reviewed work backs me up, asshole. Yours doesn't even have a methodology nor hypotheses. At least ID has that.

    Show me some academic work laying out the ID hypothesis and methodology then. Not some book for the masses, some real academic work. You say it exists so where is it?

    And I laugh at you are your cowardly bluffing.

    Then show us the real academic work that supports your views.

    All research to date supports my ideas, Jerad. And all you can do is try to handwave it all away because you are an ignorant coward.

    My opinions are based on hundreds . . . thousands of qualified scientists' opinions. Show us the academic work that supports your views.

    BTW ID has a testable hypothesis, asshole.

    Uh huh. Would that be: the evoTards have to come up with something then we'll back down? That's not a hypothesis though is it? You have to say what your view predicts and explains. Which you cannot do.

    “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.”

    Yeah, yeah. Where's the physical evidence of a designer? Where's the mechanism? Where's the timeline? Where's the hypothesis?

    Science has uncovered many biological structures, systems and subsystems that meet that criteria. And not one has a P(T|H).

    Just because you cannot compute it doesn't mean it doesn't exist though. You thought H was a number, you don't even understand what p(T|H) means.

    But I could be wrong- please produce a testable hypothesis for unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution producing ATP synthase and I will post a huge apology to you, Jerad.

    I'll look forward to that. Research is ongoing. What kind of research is your side doing? Anything?

    Elizabeth Liddle says that models are great so a model of unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution producing ATP synthase would be awesome.

    Go read some of the research. OH, I forget, you don't understand the mathematics. My bad.

     
  • At 6:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Then show us the academic work that supports your views.

    Then show us the academic work that supports YOUR views.


    My opinions are based on hundreds . . . thousands of qualified scientists' opinions.


    Opinions are like assholes, Jerad. They don't count as science, moron.

    Where's the physical evidence of a designer?

    It's the same evidence as Nan Madol- namely the fucking DESIGN you ignorant bitch.

    Just because you cannot compute it doesn't mean it doesn't exist though.

    The fact that no one can produce one tells me they don't exist, asshole.

    You are one dumbass loser, Jerad.

     
  • At 6:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad chokes:

    But I could be wrong- please produce a testable hypothesis for unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution producing ATP synthase and I will post a huge apology to you, Jerad.

    Elizabeth Liddle says that models are great so a model of unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution producing ATP synthase would be awesome.


    Jeatrd the fucking faggot coward strikesz again.

     
  • At 5:01 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Then show us the academic work that supports YOUR views.

    I have done, many times. You deny/disagree with it.

    Now show us the academic work you think supports your views.


    Opinions are like assholes, Jerad. They don't count as science, moron.

    If they're based on evidence, research and data then they count.

    What evidence and data and research upholds your position? Not just a few non-peer reviewed books.

    It's the same evidence as Nan Madol- namely the fucking DESIGN you ignorant bitch.

    Your design detection is suspect. Find some physical evidence that a being was around at the time that had the abilities you claim. Or don't claim actually. You are very, very light on details. And research. And academic publications.

    The fact that no one can produce one tells me they don't exist, asshole.

    Best ask Dr Dembski about that since he's the one that came up with it. It's not my fault he invented something that you say is meaningless.

    You are one dumbass loser, Jerad.

    What did you say about opinions?

    But I could be wrong- please produce a testable hypothesis for unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution producing ATP synthase and I will post a huge apology to you, Jerad.

    Nah, you'll just deny it like you do anything else that doesn't agree with your view. Like you've always done.

    Elizabeth Liddle says that models are great so a model of unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution producing ATP synthase would be awesome.

    Talk to her about that.

    Jeatrd the fucking faggot coward strikesz again.

    Bing abusive and spelling my name incorrectly don't get you very far.

     
  • At 5:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad, there isn't any academic work that supports evolutionism.

    But I could be wrong- please produce a testable hypothesis for unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution producing ATP synthase and I will post a huge apology to you, Jerad.

    Loser.

     
  • At 5:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Your design detection is suspect.

    And yet is has been used successfully for centuries.

     
  • At 5:22 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Jerad, there isn't any academic work that supports evolutionism.

    Nothing you agree with. But many of us have presented things.

    Now it's your turn: show us the academic work that supports your version of front-loading, an application of design detection in a biological scenario and a physical mechanism that can affect/guide development.

    Your claims, it's up to you to defend them.

    But I could be wrong- please produce a testable hypothesis for unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution producing ATP synthase and I will post a huge apology to you, Jerad.

    You deny everything that is presented.

    Loser.

    I'm not going to waste my time when I know how you will respond. And I know because of your long past record.

    And yet is has been used successfully for centuries.

    Show me some academic work which uses a design detection methodology in a biological context.

     
  • At 6:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Nothing you agree with. But many of us have presented things.

    In your deluded mind I a sure that you think so.

    Now it's your turn: show us the academic work that supports your version of front-loading, an application of design detection in a biological scenario and a physical mechanism that can affect/guide development.

    I have and you just denied it.

    But I could be wrong- please produce a testable hypothesis for unguided/ blind watchmaker evolution producing ATP synthase and I will post a huge apology to you, Jerad.

    You deny everything that is presented.

    Nothing of the kind has been presented, Jerad. You are a bluffing coward.

    Show me some academic work which uses a design detection methodology in a biological context.

    Behe, 1996

     
  • At 1:26 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    In your deluded mind I a sure that you think so.

    I know you disagree with thousands and thousands of biologists but that doesn't make you right.

    I have and you just denied it.

    You've referenced a couple of non-peer reviewed books which have some pretty negative reviews. What about some academic (i.e. peer-reviewed and published in a respectable journal) work?

    Nothing of the kind has been presented, Jerad. You are a bluffing coward.

    Like I said, you just deny everything that is presented. Always have.

    Behe, 1996

    Darwin's Black Box is NOT an academic work. Not only was is not peer-reviewed or published in a respectable journal but it has been widely reviewed and found to be at fault (point by point) by biologists who know more about such things than Dr Behe who is a chemist.

    I guess you don't understand what academic work is.

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

    I know you disagree with thousands and thousands of biologists but that doesn't make you right.

    I know that you are a bluffing liar and loser. I also know that not one biologist can present any evidence that contradicts my claims.

    You've referenced a couple of non-peer reviewed books which have some pretty negative reviews. What about some academic (i.e. peer-reviewed and published in a respectable journal) work?

    And all you can do is bluff and lie.

    Like I said, you just deny everything that is presented. Always have.

    Like I said you are just a lying bluffer. And you always have been.

    Darwin's Black Box is NOT an academic work.

    Sure it is. He is a learned scientist and his book is fully referenced.

     
  • At 3:32 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    I know that you are a bluffing liar and loser. I also know that not one biologist can present any evidence that contradicts my claims.

    That attitude is why I'm not going to present links to material anymore because you've already decided. Your mind is closed.

    And all you can do is bluff and lie.

    I'm asking you to provide academic work that supports your view. Sounds like you're bluffing and dodging.

    Like I said you are just a lying bluffer. And you always have been.

    Just show us the academic work that backs up your claim.

    Sure it is. He is a learned scientist and his book is fully referenced.

    You really do not understand what the term means. By that criteria all of Dr Dawkins books are also academic.

    Darwin's Black Box is NOT academic because it did not go through a process of peer review. No one checked to see if Dr Behe was properly interpreting the works he cited. It's not just about references; it's about making sure they say what you say they say.

    You really don't get it. You're closed minde. And you will always deny anything that challenges your beliefs. You do no research yourself. You have no publications. And your views are considered crackpot by a vast majority of biologists. And then when you're asked to defend them you can only cite non-peer reviewed work.

     
  • At 4:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    That attitude is why I'm not going to present links to material anymore because you've already decided. Your mind is closed.

    Nive projection, moron. Your attitude proves that you are an ignorant fuckhead, Jerad.

    My mind is closed because evolutionary biologists can't support their claims. What a little-minded imp you are.

    By that criteria all of Dr Dawkins books are also academic.

    They are also evidence-free.

    And you will always deny anything that challenges your beliefs.

    And you will always lie and spew false accusations. You are the worst part of humanity.

     
  • At 1:40 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Nive projection, moron. Your attitude proves that you are an ignorant fuckhead, Jerad.

    And your next comment is . .

    My mind is closed because evolutionary biologists can't support their claims. What a little-minded imp you are.

    Thanks for confirming my statement.

    They are also evidence-free.

    So, you think Dr Behe's book is good because he's got a PhD and references. Dr Dawkins has written more books, about the field he's trained in, has published peer-reviewed research in that field, has his views taken seriously by others in that field AND has lots and lots of references but his books are evidence free.

    Being closed minded is a lot easy I have to admit.

    And you will always lie and spew false accusations. You are the worst part of humanity.

    I'm only saying that based on my experience attempting to discuss things with you.

    Meanwhile . . . .

    Can you show us any academic work supporting your (unstated) front-loading hypothesis?

    Can you show us any academic work laying out a design detection methodology and showing it applied to a biological case?

    Can you show us any academic work supporting your contention that there is a physical mechanism the guides mutations and development?

    You've made claims, you haven't backed them up with peer-reviewed work.

     
  • At 10:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad proves he is a little faggot:

    My mind is closed because evolutionary biologists can't support their claims. What a little-minded imp you are.

    Thanks for confirming my statement.

    Only an ignorant little faggot would say that confirms your statement. What the fuck is wrong with you?

    How does that work, Jerad? How am I closed minded because no one can support unguided evolution?

    Dr Dawkins has written more books, about the field he's trained in, has published peer-reviewed research in that field, has his views taken seriously by others in that field AND has lots and lots of references but his books are evidence free.

    Find one piece of evidence in Dawkins' books tat supports unguided evolution's ability to produce multi-protein functional configurations. I bet you can't.

    You've made claims, you haven't backed them up with peer-reviewed work.

    YOU"VE made claims, YOU haven't backed them up with peer-reviewed work.

    You can't even tell us how to test the claims of unguided evolution.

     
  • At 5:00 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Jerad proves he is a little faggot:

    How Joe does science.

    Only an ignorant little faggot would say that confirms your statement. What the fuck is wrong with you?

    You admitted your mind was closed which is what I said. Do I have to repeat things you've said?



    Because you've said they can't. Instead of saying they haven't. Besides, I've been observing your behaviour for awhile now. You've already made up your mind and refuse to accept anything which contradicts your view.

    Find one piece of evidence in Dawkins' books tat supports unguided evolution's ability to produce multi-protein functional configurations. I bet you can't.

    It all does. But you deny it all. As I've said. Always. And you always will.

    YOU"VE made claims, YOU haven't backed them up with peer-reviewed work.

    Saying so just makes you look completely foolish. You disagree with the research but you cannot deny that there are thousands upon thousands of biological research papers which espouse unguided evolution. You denying them does not take them away.

    You can't even tell us how to test the claims of unguided evolution.

    Duh, even Darwin knew how to do that. Please try and keep up.

     
  • At 6:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You admitted your mind was closed which is what I said.

    Only an asshole coward would say that and here you are.

    Because you've said they can't. Instead of saying they haven't.

    Your desperation is showing, again. If they could they would, Jerad.

    YOU"VE made claims, YOU haven't backed them up with peer-reviewed work.

    Saying so just makes you look completely foolish.

    You are a fool so you may know about stuff like that. However what I said is true.

    You can't even tell us how to test the claims of unguided evolution.

    Duh, even Darwin knew how to do that.

    No, he didn't. He didn't know how to model it. He was totally ignorant of genetics.

     
  • At 3:08 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Only an asshole coward would say that and here you are.

    You are closed minded.

    You are a fool so you may know about stuff like that. However what I said is true.

    What you haven't done is show us and peer-reviewed work that:

    discusses a front-loading scenario (which you haven't give yet either)

    presents a design detection methodology and applies it to a biological case

    explores the possibility of a physical mechanism inside the cell which can guide mutations and development.

    Just in case you've forgotten that you haven't done any of those things. You seem determined to attack rather than defend.

    No, he didn't. He didn't know how to model it. He was totally ignorant of genetics.

    Uh, we were talking about testing, not modelling. Please do try and pay attention.

     
  • At 7:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad, You are an ignorant coward. I was an evolutionist until I started looking more closely at the evidence.

    And BTW, moron, modeling is a way of testing.

    What YOU haven't done is show us and peer-reviewed work that:

    Demonstrates unguided evolution can produce multi-protein functional configurations.

    Produces testable hypotheses for such a thing

    Presents unguided evolutionary methodology

     
  • At 9:35 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Jerad, You are an ignorant coward. I was an evolutionist until I started looking more closely at the evidence.

    No wonder you changed camps, you didn't really understand evolutionary theory.

    And BTW, moron, modeling is a way of testing.

    So? Not the only way. Darwin spent decades collecting evidence and data and he came up with a hypothesis, a way of explaining the diversity of life. He also figured out ways his idea could be falsified and he made predictions of things he expected would be found. And everyday field workers are discovering new data which could prove Darwin incorrect.

    Demonstrates unguided evolution can produce multi-protein functional configurations.

    Go look. I'm tired of feeding your ignorance.

    Produces testable hypotheses for such a thing

    Go look, I'm tired of feeding your wilful ignorance.

    Presents unguided evolutionary methodology

    They all do. You have reading comprehension problems and refuse to accept anything that contradicts your beliefs.

     
  • At 10:13 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No wonder you changed camps, you didn't really understand evolutionary theory.

    I understand evolution and evolutionism better than you ever will.

    Darwin spent decades collecting evidence and data and he came up with a hypothesis, a way of explaining the diversity of life.

    His big contribution was natural selection and that has proven to be impotent.

    He also figured out ways his idea could be falsified and he made predictions of things he expected would be found.

    It has been falsified by the observations of cellular activities and structures.

    As for the rest, thanks for continuing to prove that you have nothing. I have looked. Dr Behe has looked. He even had a peer-reviewed paper exposing the failure of peer-review to support the unguided evolution paradigm.

    And again no one has ever presented any scientific evidence that contradicts my claims nor those of ID.

     
  • At 1:44 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

     
  • At 2:32 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Fuck me- I lost your last post- going looking to retrieve it

     
  • At 2:29 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Fuck me- I lost your last post- going looking to retrieve it

    No worries, sometimes you just push the wrong button!! Happens to me all the time.

    I'm not sure it's worth it but I'll repost it here. I got an email notice with the full text.

    I understand evolution and evolutionism better than you ever will.

    You have yet to show that understanding.

    His big contribution was natural selection and that has proven to be impotent.

    And when was that proven? In what peer-reviewed work?

    It has been falsified by the observations of cellular activities and structures.

    In what peer-reviewed work?

    As for the rest, thanks for continuing to prove that you have nothing. I have looked. Dr Behe has looked. He even had a peer-reviewed paper exposing the failure of peer-review to support the unguided evolution paradigm.

    Did he? What paper was that then?

    And again no one has ever presented any scientific evidence that contradicts my claims nor those of ID.

    Happens every day. You just deny it all.

    Meanwhile you have yet to:

    Provide any peer-reviewed work which supports your (unstated) front-loading hypothesis.

    Provide and example of anyone using a design detection hypothesis in a biological example.

    Provided any kind of work which supports a mechanism in cells which directs or guides mutations.

    Probably time to just say you can't. It would save some time.

     
  • At 8:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You have yet to show that understanding.

    Coming from you that is meaningless.

    And when was that proven? In what peer-reviewed work?

    There isn't any peer-reviewed work that shows it can do anything. That's the point.

    And again no one has ever presented any scientific evidence that contradicts my claims nor those of ID.

    Happens every day.

    Perhaps in your mental midget imagination, but it has never happened in the real world.

    Meanwhile you have yet to:

    Provide any peer-reviewed work which supports your (unstated) front-loading hypothesis.


    It all does

    Provide and example of anyone using a design detection hypothesis in a biological example.

    Provided any kind of work which supports a mechanism in cells which directs or guides mutations.

    Epigenetics- sos response- transposons (they contain the code for two of the enzymes required to allow it to move around. Then there is transcription, translation, error-correction, proof-reading, splicing, editing and the arbitrary genetic code. Arbitrary means it is not reducible to physical mechanisms.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home