What Does ID Offer?
-
Over on TSZ "scientist" Robin asked :
ID also offers up that there is a real purpose to our existence. A reason for us to be here. That is something else that we wouldn't be looking for under the current lame and unscientific paradigm.
And all of those other questions become different venues for exploration- the who's, how's, why's, when's. Exciting stuff.
So the real question is what the fuck does evolutionism and materialism offer? I doubt we'll ever get a well reasoned and logical answer to that question.
Did you notice the mass equivocation:
Yes Robin, actual science works. Evolutionism isn't actual science, dumbass. But then again Robin thinks science is done via definition. dee-d-dee
Over on TSZ "scientist" Robin asked :
What does ID offer?Well Robin, ID offers basically the same thing as archaeology, forensic science and SETI. It offers up the chance that what we are observing may be the result of Intelligent Design. And if ID is right that means living organisms are not reducible to physics and chemistry which means there is something else to living organisms. That means we would seek out and find it. And that is something that will never happen under the current unscientific paradigm. I think it would be very exciting to determine what makes living organisms work. From there we should be able to determine what makes an organism what it is because the genome isn't the determining factor. Yes genomes control and influence development but no one has shown genomes determine the type of organism that develops.
ID also offers up that there is a real purpose to our existence. A reason for us to be here. That is something else that we wouldn't be looking for under the current lame and unscientific paradigm.
And all of those other questions become different venues for exploration- the who's, how's, why's, when's. Exciting stuff.
So the real question is what the fuck does evolutionism and materialism offer? I doubt we'll ever get a well reasoned and logical answer to that question.
Did you notice the mass equivocation:
Think of all the activities that science has had a hand in either creating outright or improving: medicine, flight (well…transportation in general), communication, air quality, water quality, athletics, longevity, food preparation and quality, food production (agriculture), breeding and animal husbandry, manufacturing, etc, etc, etc, and etc…And what part of that has anything to do with the claim living organisms arose and evolved by means of blind and mindless processes? What part of that has to do with the claim the earth/ moon and solar system was the result of unplanned cosmic collisions and the laws of nature?
Yes Robin, actual science works. Evolutionism isn't actual science, dumbass. But then again Robin thinks science is done via definition. dee-d-dee
posted by Joe G @ 8:54 PM
24 Comments:
At 3:36 PM,
Jerad said…
Well Robin, ID offers basically the same thing as archaeology, forensic science and SETI. It offers up the chance that what we are observing may be the result of Intelligent Design.
It's not true that ID offers the same thing as archaeology except in the vaguest sense. Archaeology studies artefacts and structures made by human beings. It determines which things have been created by looking for parallels with known creations and sometimes by experimentation.
ID has a completely different method of exploration. Firstly, it supposes an unknown, non-human designer without being able to present any other designed objects to compare with. Because the designer is unknown it's abilities and tools and capacities are also unknown. Secondly no one in the ID community is attempting to recreate artefacts supposedly designed to see what techniques were used. Thirdly, archaeology is incredibly interested in dating objects of interest. It's crucial in fact. ID proponents have not been able to come up with any kind of estimate of when design was implemented. In fact, if you press them on that they duck and dodge because they haven't got a clue.
Archaeology cares about who, when and how. ID is not interested in any of those questions. No one in the ID community is exploring those issues at all. Pretending that ID is equivalent to a real science like archaeology is, frankly, insulting. The only exploration ID proponents do is trying to show that natural, unguided processes can't do it.
At 5:16 PM,
Joe G said…
It's not true that ID offers the same thing as archaeology except in the vaguest sense.
How would you know? You are an ignoramus.
Archaeology cares about who, when and how.
And yet we don't know the who, when and how of Nan Madol or Stonehenge. Loser
ID is not interested in any of those questions.
True, those come AFTER, just as I have been saying for years. You must be willfully ignorant.
And guess what? How do we know humans of thousands of years ago had the capability of making Stonehenge? Stonehenge! We know the capabilities of the designers by what they left behind, duh.
And AGAIN, if Jerad had something- anything- to test the claims of his position and actually tested them, we might not be having this discussion. But Jerad doesn't understand how science operates and he is proud of his ignorance.
Is anyone trying to reproduce Nan Madol or the pyramids? No
At 5:53 PM,
Joe G said…
Everything we know about Stonehenge cane AFTER it was determined to be an artifact and also after many, many years of studying it and all relevant evidence. And Stonehenge is simple compared to living organisms. We can actually build a Stonehenge if we wanted. We can't actually create living organisms from scratch.
Artifacts do not come with tags. But saying something was the result of Intelligent Design is important as it gives us a starting point to conduct further research. We wouldn't expect geologists to make sense of Stonehenge as a natural formation.
At 3:07 AM,
Unknown said…
After all these years of claiming that design has been detected in biological systems and STILL NO ONE is even trying to answer who, when and how.
We know a lot about the people who made Stonehenge and the techniques they used. You're just too lazy to read up on the research and you have to deny it exists or admit you're wrong.
You do no science. You publish nothing. You don't have a degree in science. You don't even teach it. Your claims to understand how science works is not backed up with any kind of evidence of your expertise. Why don't you and your ID buddies get around to what you claim comes after design has been detected? No ones cares. You cannot show me any ID research that is attempting to answer those questions. Your excuses are getting very, very tired. Even if it takes years why is no one even trying?
At 7:39 AM,
Joe G said…
After all these years of claiming that design has been detected in biological systems and STILL NO ONE is even trying to answer who, when and how.
So what? Those have NOTHING to do with ID. Those are SEPARATE questions. Also no one is trying to figure out how vision systems evolved by means of bling and mindless processes. No one is trying to figure out how anything evolved via blind and mindless processes. Your position is totally useless and untestable
We know a lot about the people who made Stonehenge and the techniques they used.
Wow, you are fucking ignorant, Jerad. Can you even read? We may know a lot about the people in the area but we don't know they designed and built Stonehenge. But that is moot as everything we think we know came AFTER many, many years of research/
You do no science. You publish nothing. You don't have a degree in science. You don't even teach it. Your claims to understand how science works is not backed up with any kind of evidence of your expertise.
That's you, Jerad. Nice call
Why don't you and your ID buddies get around to what you claim comes after design has been detected?<
How many times do I have to tell you? No one is on you ignorant agenda, Jerad. And there are more important questions to answer. Besides your position has nothing so perhaps your focus is misplaced.
Jerad the willfully ignorant evoTARD strikes again
At 7:40 AM,
Joe G said…
Well Robin, ID offers basically the same thing as archaeology, forensic science and SETI. It offers up the chance that what we are observing may be the result of Intelligent Design.
That happens to be true and nothing anyone can say will ever refute it. And it is very telling that Jerad quoted it and didn't even address it.
At 12:59 PM,
William Spearshake said…
"So what? Those have NOTHING to do with ID.
But everything to do with the confirmation of design.
Yes, we know that Stonehenge was designed. Tool marks are readily seen on it. And other similar structures of known origin were known.
ID has claimed to have identified design in biology years ago. Remember the flagellum? When are they going to start research on confirming it?
At 1:07 PM,
Joe G said…
But everything to do with the confirmation of design.
In your opinion.
ID has claimed to have identified design in biology years ago. Remember the flagellum? When are they going to start research on confirming it?
It's been confirmed and remains unrefuted.
Yes, we know that living organisms, their systems and subsystems are designed. They have all the hallmarks of Intelligent Design including the fact that no one knows how blind and mindless processes could produce them.
At 1:53 PM,
Jerad said…
So what? Those have NOTHING to do with ID. Those are SEPARATE questions.
So, ID has no research agenda beyond saying "this is designed"? Really? So who is going to ask and attempt to answer the questions any competent science would want to ask: when, how and who? When are you and your ID buddies going to do some real work?
Also no one is trying to figure out how vision systems evolved by means of bling and mindless processes. No one is trying to figure out how anything evolved via blind and mindless processes. Your position is totally useless and untestable
So, you are unaware that such work is being done so you say it isn't? Too funny. It's like Dr Behe at the Kitzmiller trial. Ignorance is not proof.
We may know a lot about the people in the area but we don't know they designed and built Stonehenge.
Again, you read a book or two and you think you know everything. No wonder no one takes you seriously.
That's you, Jerad. Nice call
I have two Masters degrees, one in mathematics and one in archaeological information systems. I have many years of successful teaching and tutoring experience. I have lots and lots of friends who are practicing scientists and archaeologists. Why don't you try searching for my name on the internet sometime. What have you got? You read a few books? Non-peer reviewed books? Have you taken a graduate course in anything? Have you ever taught a course at a certified institution? In other words: have you ever had your ideas examined and reviewed by people in the field who have more experience than you?
How many times do I have to tell you? No one is on you ignorant agenda, Jerad
So, what is ID's agenda? 'Teach the controversy'? Tell me ID's research agenda. Go on.
When are they going to start research on confirming it?
They're not going to. How can you research God? A hypothesised being beyond space and time? How can you design an experiment to detect such a being? If something happens then it could have been God. If nothing happens then it's just said that God chose not to act. It's not science. It's theology and not very good theology at that. I used to feel sorry for Joe for being let down by his ID buddies but, after all these years since he still swallows the BS I don't. He's been hoodwinked and fooled by the deniers who published their non-reviewed books and since he can't verify or understand the mathematics or the science presented he has no choice but to buy it. OR listen to all the people who say it's rubbish. But he's decided what's true and he'll never admit he's wrong. Ever.
At 2:07 PM,
Joe G said…
So, ID has no research agenda beyond saying "this is designed"?
Spoken like a willfully ignorant asshole, Jerad. I even mentioned an ID research program in the OP
So, you are unaware that such work is being done so you say it isn't?
Your cowardly bluffing means nothing, asshole.
I have two Masters degrees, one in mathematics and one in archaeological information systems.
And yet you are ignorant of science and biology. I don't know why you think your ignorance means something, Jerad.
I will listen to the anti-IDists when they start saying how to test their claims, test and confirm them. Just because you are gullible and ignorant doesn't mean I have to follow suit.
For fuck's sake you can't even read
At 2:09 PM,
Joe G said…
Too funny- Jerad sed:
You do no science. You publish nothing. You don't have a degree in science. You don't even teach it. Your claims to understand how science works is not backed up with any kind of evidence of your expertise.
I responded with =- That is you, Jerad. Nice call
And what does dumbass come back with?
I have two Masters degrees, one in mathematics and one in archaeological information systems. And friends who are scientists
Thank you for confirming what I said, Jerad
At 2:30 PM,
Jerad said…
And if ID is right that means living organisms are not reducible to physics and chemistry which means there is something else to living organisms. That means we would seek out and find it. And that is something that will never happen under the current unscientific paradigm. I think it would be very exciting to determine what makes living organisms work. From there we should be able to determine what makes an organism what it is because the genome isn't the determining factor. Yes genomes control and influence development but no one has shown genomes determine the type of organism that develops.
So, what is the research agenda? What work is being done? You say you're interested in these things so who is doing the work?
And yet you are ignorant of science and biology. I don't know why you think your ignorance means something, Jerad.
Show me where your views have been peer-reviewed and discussed. Show me that you have any academic standing whatsoever.
I do have a degree in science. I do teach mathematics. I get paid for my expertise.
You have no academic qualifications in any kind of science field. You have no publications. You have no teaching experience. You haven't written a book explaining any aspect of any science at all. You just have a blog on a free site. You haven't even designed your own website.
When I was in graduate school, both times, I had to continual defend my views to older and more experienced members of the field. I was usually wrong. That's how I learned. You have never done such a thing. You don't have a clue what it takes. You've never come close to doing such a thing. That's why no one takes you seriously. No matter what you say you can't do the work. You just bluff and dodge. Which is not good enough.
At 3:36 PM,
Joe G said…
What have you learned, Jerad? You spew your ignorance like a badge of honor. You quote me and then don't even address what you quote. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that everything we know about artifacts how they were made and who made them comes from years of study- all AFTER the artifacts were found and determined to be artifacts.
You don't seem to understand that no one, least of all you, knows how to test the claim that vision systems arose by means of natural selection, drift, neutral construction or any other blind and mindless process. That is why the vast majority of people know that evolutionism is a joke. Science, my ass.
Jerad has two masturbation degrees
At 4:49 PM,
William Spearshake said…
So we can expect to see papers on those steps that follow the identification of design. Nice to know. I will keep checking the journals.
At 5:33 PM,
Joe G said…
I can only guarantee they will be out before any papers that support the evolution of ATP synthase by means of blind and mindless processes.
At 5:44 PM,
Jerad said…
What have you learned, Jerad? You spew your ignorance like a badge of honor. You quote me and then don't even address what you quote. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that everything we know about artifacts how they were made and who made them comes from years of study- all AFTER the artifacts were found and determined to be artifacts.
You've had years to study DNA and ATP synthase and yet no one, no one at all, in the ID community is even trying to go beyond: this is designed. If I'm wrong please show me. Tell me who has spent years and years studying the design of DNA or ATP synthase and what conclusions they have reached. Go on. Tell me. Is it you? Have you done any work? Have you published any papers? Have you addressed any conferences? Have you taught any courses? Have you? Have you done anything except publish some blog posts on a free site that you haven't even designed?
You don't seem to understand that no one, least of all you, knows how to test the claim that vision systems arose by means of natural selection, drift, neutral construction or any other blind and mindless process. That is why the vast majority of people know that evolutionism is a joke. Science, my ass.
Again, you duck and dodge and fail to show how ID has a better research agenda. And you mega-fail to acknowledge all the research that is happening into the areas that you say is not happening. Because you read a book that claims that mutations are not random. That's it. One book. People are laughing at you. All the time.
You also dodge the fact that you have no academic qualifications, publications or experience. You can't make things disappear by ignoring them. YOU HAVE NO ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE OR QUALIFICATIONS. You didn't even address the issue. You just pretend it haven't been brought up. You are a coward. And you don't even have the guts to acknowledge the truth of that. You just hope people forget that fact.
Jerad has two masturbation degrees
But I do have two degrees in science and/or mathematics. You don't.
You continue to exhibit why no one takes you seriously. You are a joke at the extreme edge of things. Even your ID buddies don't participate in your blog or defend you at UD. How many names have you appeared as at UD? At The Skeptics Zone? NO ONE likes you or cares what you think. Both sides have banned you more than once.
You're wrong and you're an asshole. Have a good time. Especially when NO ONE comes to defend you or your views. Not Kairos focus. Not anyone from the Discovery Institute. Not any one. None of them will come here to your blog and support you. They never have. They never will.
At 8:17 PM,
Joe G said…
Jerad, In over 150 years your position has nothing. So stuff it.
Again, you duck and dodge and fail to show how ID has a better research agenda.
Better than what, exactly? Do tell.
You can attack me all you want but you will never show that I am wrong about this. So what does that say about your qualifications?
And look, you can't insult me as you are a proven loser.
At 2:55 AM,
Jerad said…
Jerad, In over 150 years your position has nothing. So stuff it.
Deny, deny, deny.
What is the ID research agenda? Who is doing any pro-ID research? What great areas of science has ID opened up that ID proponents are pursuing? What work are you doing since you claim to understand science so much better than just about everyone else? Are you doing any scientific work at all?
Better than what, exactly? Do tell.
Deny, deny, deny that there is over 150 years of research into unguided evolutionary processes. I guess it's easy to deny what you can't understand.
You can attack me all you want but you will never show that I am wrong about this. So what does that say about your qualifications?
You are incapable of admitting you're wrong so it doesn't matter how much evidence is handed to you. Deny, deny, deny.
And look, you can't insult me as you are a proven loser.
This from the person who claims there is 'extra programming' in cells but has no idea where or how to find it. The same person who can't say what form that extra programming would take. How it would be stored in cellular structures. How it would interact with biological development. A person who read a book or two and is now a true believer when he can't even understand the mathematics behind the argument.
This from the person who claims to know more about one area of mathematics that everyone else in the world but can't back up his own claim by calculating the 'relative cardinality' of the positive prime numbers. A person who can't understand or compute undergraduate level calculus.
This from the person who has no higher level academic qualifications. Has no academic or scientific publications. Has no professional scientific experience. Has no professional academic teaching experience.
This from a person who has been kicked off several blog sites more than once for rude behaviour. Sites on both sides of the debate. A person who has almost no one, particularly those with posting privileges at Uncommon Descent, defends him on his own blog or at Uncommon Descent or The Skeptical Zone.
This from a person who claims to have an IQ of 150.
If you're really as smart and as knowledgable as you claim then why don't you do something to prove it. Do some research, real research. Take some graduate level courses in biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics. Or is it all just empty posturing and bluffing?
You should apply for a job with President Trump. I'm sure you'd fit right in.
At 9:11 AM,
Joe G said…
Nope, no science there, Jerad. And nothing that refutes my OP. You don't even seem to understand what science entails.
You can say that I am denying until you are blue in the face. Tat just exposes your ignorance.
Look, you are just a gullible imp who couldn't support nor find any for your position. You can't even find the alleged scientific theory of evolution., What is the research program for blind and mindless processes? What evolutionists are working on the evolution of vision systems via blind and mindless processes? Who even uses that useless heuristic?
You are pathetic, Jerad
At 7:24 PM,
William Spearshake said…
Or submit his research to a peer reviewed journal. It is done on-line now and is very easy to do. And doesn't require the author to be employed by a university.
At 8:02 PM,
Joe G said…
According to evolutionists peer-review isn't required. There isn't anything in peer-review that supports evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. So why bother?
At 6:36 AM,
Jerad said…
What evolutionists are working on the evolution of vision systems via blind and mindless processes? Who even uses that useless heuristic?
It has not been shown that mutations are guided despite what non-peer reviewed books you've read. And the reason the work wasn't peer-reviewed? Because it would have been shot down in flames.
Or submit his research to a peer reviewed journal. It is done on-line now and is very easy to do. And doesn't require the author to be employed by a university.
Unless the prospective author is too much of a coward to see if his ideas stand academic scrutiny.
There isn't anything in peer-review that supports evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.
You have yet to show that the processes are unblind.
So why bother?
Guess you are lazy as well as a coward.
At 9:26 AM,
Joe G said…
It has not been shown that mutations are guided despite what non-peer reviewed books you've read
It has not been shown that mutations are unguided despite what non-peer reviewed books YOU've read
There isn't anything in peer-review that supports evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.
You have yet to show that the processes are unblind.
So what? There isn't anything in peer-review that supports evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.
Heck genetic algorithms are examples of intelligent design evolution. And yet there aren't any examples of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes.
Look, Jerad, you are just an ignorant and gullible fool. Your ignorance forces you to lie. And by your own logic evos are lazy and cowards.
Nice own goal
At 9:27 AM,
Joe G said…
Unless the prospective author is too much of a coward to see if his ideas stand academic scrutiny.
So perhaps the evos work didn't stand academic scrutiny as it sure as hell isn't in any peer-reviewed journal
Post a Comment
<< Home