Joshua Swamidass is Confused- or Scientifically Iliterate
-
Earth to Swamidass- No, we do NOT have to know how something was designed before we can determine it was in fact designed. We don't even ask how until AFTER design has been determined.
We do not have any idea how the ancients designed and manufactured the Antikythera Mechanism and yet we know it is an artifact. We are still trying to figure out how Stonehenge and the pyramids were built but we know they are artifacts.
And our opponents don't have any idea how blind and mindless processes produced the diversity of life and yet that is considered science even though evolutionism is supposed to be all about the how.
As I said, we have difficulty figuring out how the ancients produced some of their artifacts. And these are things we can reproduce. We cannot design life. We cannot design planets. We cannot design universes. So the "how" is a separate question, as it should be.
Only people who don't know anything about investigations say what Timothy Horton spewed and Joshua swallowed.
Joshua is totally clueless
Earth to Swamidass- No, we do NOT have to know how something was designed before we can determine it was in fact designed. We don't even ask how until AFTER design has been determined.
We do not have any idea how the ancients designed and manufactured the Antikythera Mechanism and yet we know it is an artifact. We are still trying to figure out how Stonehenge and the pyramids were built but we know they are artifacts.
And our opponents don't have any idea how blind and mindless processes produced the diversity of life and yet that is considered science even though evolutionism is supposed to be all about the how.
As I said, we have difficulty figuring out how the ancients produced some of their artifacts. And these are things we can reproduce. We cannot design life. We cannot design planets. We cannot design universes. So the "how" is a separate question, as it should be.
Only people who don't know anything about investigations say what Timothy Horton spewed and Joshua swallowed.
Joshua is totally clueless
posted by Joe G @ 9:07 PM
15 Comments:
At 4:27 PM,
JV said…
We do not have any idea how the ancients designed and manufactured the Antikythera Mechanism and yet we know it is an artifact. We are still trying to figure out how Stonehenge and the pyramids were built but we know they are artifacts.
And, the bit you conveniently leave out, we know there were designers around at the time with the ability to produce and implement the design!!
IF we had no evidence of designers around at the time with the capabilities then we would have to question the design inference. But ID proponents never address this issue. They look at some thing, claim unguided processes could not have produced it, have no evidence of any kind of designer around at . . . what time exactly? Doing what exactly? How exactly? And yet they never, ever question the design inference.
No other evidence of any kind of designer. No ability to address how and when (or even why) issues). No research being done to address any of those questions. And yet ID proponents claim they are doing science. Without researching anything. Without publishing anything. Without even attempting to address the obvious questions that any sensible person would ask. You're still studying the design? Really? Where are the publications about that then?
You can bitch and moan about how you think mainstream, unguided evolutionary theory hasn't answered certain questions you think are central and you probably do have some pertinent points to make. But you have yet to propose an alternative that is not just a massive case of special pleading and proving a negative. You've got no designer and you can not show that unguided processes are not up to the task. You just can't do it. And you deny and ignore mountains of evidence which support the claim that unguided processes are up to the job.
You are arguing from an ideological stance and that weakens your reasoning. Until you admit that you will always be hampered in your attempts at coming up with a viable atlernate scientific hypothesis.
At 5:29 PM,
Joe G said…
And, the bit you conveniently leave out, we know there were designers around at the time with the ability to produce and implement the design!!
We only "know" those humans could do it cuz it's there. And we don't know who.
IF we had no evidence of designers around at the time with the capabilities then we would have to question the design inference.
Right, if Stonehenge didn't exist we wouldn't infer it was designed. But the structure itself is more than enough for the design inference.
They look at some thing, claim unguided processes could not have produced it
Then shut up, step and demonstrate otherwise. Support your side's claims and we couldn't say that.
You guys can't even get replicating RNAs without scientists designing them. And even then all you get is very limited.
The evidence for the designer has been presented. Your ignorance of it, while amusing, is not an argument.
And you deny and ignore mountains of evidence which support the claim that unguided processes are up to the job.
LIAR. We cannot ignore that which doesn't exist. You are clearly a deluded loser, Jerad.
Proving a negative? You moron that is exactly what your side demands. That is exactly what Darwin said would falsify his claims.
You are a clueless hack.
At 4:31 PM,
JV said…
We only "know" those humans could do it cuz it's there. And we don't know who.
You conveniently miss the point: IF there were no demonstrable designers of any kind around at the time then we'd have to reconsider the design inference.
ID continually wants to create a designer because they think something could not have arisen from unguided processes. But they cannot 'prove' that unguided processes are not up to the task so they are always creating or assuming a cause that violates Ockham's razor and the precepts laid down by Newton. They create a designer out of a contested design inference. And why? Ask yourself that.
Right, if Stonehenge didn't exist we wouldn't infer it was designed. But the structure itself is more than enough for the design inference.
Only because we know there were designers around at the time who had the abilities!! You refuse to say when or how design was implemented and you think you can just magic a designer out of a disputed design inference. And you are not publishing any work or research into the how or why or even the design detection methods. You stamp your feet, produce nothing and insist on being taken seriously. DO SOME WORK. Do something. For a decade or more nothing new has come out of the ID community. Nothing. That's not how science works. And you can't just keep claiming that it's because the system is against you. The Discovery Institute has a very large budget. They could easily be funding some real research. Or all you ID proponents could create a research fund and pay for some work. But you don't. No one does. And it's been that way for a long time.
The evidence for the designer has been presented. Your ignorance of it, while amusing, is not an argument.
Your 'evidence' is: no one can show to our satisfaction, that such and such arose from unguided processes therefore it was designed. We haven't got any other evidence than that and we haven't done any work examining when and how design was implemented but we demand you take us seriously because we really, really believe we're right.
LIAR. We cannot ignore that which doesn't exist. You are clearly a deluded loser, Jerad.
But you can chose to ignore it, as you do. Because you really, really believe you are right.
Proving a negative? You moron that is exactly what your side demands. That is exactly what Darwin said would falsify his claims.
I'm not not one saying unguided processes could not make the mark. You are saying that. You are trying to prove a negative. As usual, And you still can't show when and how design was implemented or demonstrate a designer.
Eventually, even you has to start questioning the hypothesis. Unless it's just a matter of faith. Not really up to real scientific questioning. Is that it then? You just really, really believe you're right?
At 8:21 PM,
Joe G said…
IF there were no demonstrable designers of any kind around at the time then we'd have to reconsider the design inference.
Not at all. We would infer whoever did it didn't leave any traces beyond the structure.
ID continually wants to create a designer because they think something could not have arisen from unguided processes.
That is your ignorant opinion, anyway. Cause and effect relationships. And again, if your side had something you would just present it and that would be it.
Our knowledge of cause and effect relationships is what rives the design inference.
And no, moron, we only "know" they had the abilities because the structure is there.
Also design is a mechanism. And your side is suppose to be all about the how and yet you have jack shit.
Design is a mechanism. Genetic engineering via targeted searches is a mechanism.
Your 'evidence' is: no one can show to our satisfaction, that such and such arose from unguided processes therefore it was designed.
Again with your ignorance. It must hurt you that your side has nothing but your incessant whining.
YOU are the one ignoring the evidence and science, asshole.
1- You side cannot even show nature can produce replicating molecules
2- Your side has no idea how the genetic code and all of the other codes arose. You don't have a mechanism capable.
3- Listen asshole- YOUR side says to refute it we have to prove the negative- Darwin wrote it- are you REALLY that ignorant? REALLY?
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. Charles Darwin
And AGAIN, Newton's four rules- my goodness your scientific ignorance runs deep.
Your side has nothing, Jerad. You don't even have a methodology to test its claims. You are just an ignorant ass.
Do you really think that anyone would suggest Stonehenge was a natural formation if humans weren't around? How fucking thick are you?
At 5:08 PM,
JV said…
Not at all. We would infer whoever did it didn't leave any traces beyond the structure.
Just a bit of special pleading there then.
And no, moron, we only "know" they had the abilities because the structure is there.
Incorrect. There are hundreds of stone cirlces in Britain so there is clearly a widespread culture of creating such structures.
Also design is a mechanism. And your side is suppose to be all about the how and yet you have jack shit.
Design has to be implemented at a certain time in in a certain way by a designer. Correct?
Design is a mechanism. Genetic engineering via targeted searches is a mechanism.
The use of genetic engineering we can document and pinpoint regarding who and when and how and why. Can you do that with your proposed design?
f it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. Charles Darwin
Okay, fair enough. But there are other ways to refute the evolutionary hypothesis which do not involved 'proving a negative'. Perhaps you should work on those. They don't require a lot of expensive equipment or labs.
And AGAIN, Newton's four rules- my goodness your scientific ignorance runs deep.
Newton did specify that no unnecessary or unobserved cause should be invoked but ID does that. You imagine a designer which you cannot define or even specify when and how and why it operated.
Do you really think that anyone would suggest Stonehenge was a natural formation if humans weren't around? How fucking thick are you?
But there were obvious and capable designers around at the time!! You can't even be clear on when design was implemented let alone how and by whom.
You live on a prayer and yet accuse everyone else of having inadequate evidence. You've got no evidence, all you've got is a contentious design inference with no corresponding evidence to back it up. Show me that that statement is incorrect. Show me your other lines of evidence. Show me anything other than other claims of design that there was any designer around at . . . when exactly? Who did what exactly? And how?
If you're doing science you're doing it very badly. I think what you're actually doing is just latching on to a few things written by a few people (like Dr Behe and Dr Dembski and Dr Shapiro) and believing that a whole, viable branch of science has been create. But clearly very little, if any, work has come out the the endeavour. Even Dr Dembski has abandoned the effort. Dr Behe has a book coming out soon but it doesn't sound like he is making any new arguments in it; I'll wait until it's published to draw a final conclusion but I'm not hopeful.
ID is dying. It's not producing much if any viable work or research topics. It's not saying anything new or different. It is just creationism in a new suit. And that's why it will, eventually, fail when the people ponying up the money run out of funds. Only the true believers are paying for it.
At 7:10 PM,
Joe G said…
Knowledge of cause and effect relationships is not special pleading. Clearly you don't have any investigative experience at all.
And again, if Stonehenge did NOT exist we would NEVER infer those people had the ability to create such a structure. Especially given those other sites.
We definitely would NEVER have thought the ancients had a machine like the Antikythera mechanism if we never found one.
And AGAIN-
In the absence of direct observation or designer input, the ONLY POSSIBLE way to make any inferences about the Designer(s) or the processes used, is by STUDYING the DESIGN in question. And even then we may never know as exemplified by numerous artifacts.
The mere scope of what we are dealing with- we cannot produce living organisms- we cannot produce planets- means, to an educated person- we need to focus on other, more important questions
And shut the fuck up about science. You are as scientifically illiterate as they come.
And until your alleged evolutionary hypothesis can be tested there isn't anything to refute.
ID posits a KNOWN cause- we KNOW what intelligent agencies can produce. We also know what nature, operating freely, is capable of.
ID is going strong. There isn't anything to stop it. Your side has never produced anything. Thanks to evos we don't even know what makes an organism what it is.
At least Intelligent Design's concepts are useful an being used. No one uses blind watchmaker evolution for anything. Materialism has never added anything to our knowledge
At 4:34 PM,
JV said…
Knowledge of cause and effect relationships is not special pleading. Clearly you don't have any investigative experience at all.
The only intelligent agent you have any experience or proof of is human beings. Correct?
And again, if Stonehenge did NOT exist we would NEVER infer those people had the ability to create such a structure. Especially given those other sites.
No, incorrect. The ancient astronaut proponents already tested this area. We see many ancient sites involving similar design and construction aspects. We KNOW there were humans around at the time. We find tools and stages of construction around such sites completely in coherence with the technology known to have existed at the time. We figure out ways the constructions could have been carried out with the tools and abilities knows to have existed at the time. We conclude that human beings, at the time, built Stonehenge and not some alien astronauts. We have no need for supposing aliens were around or required.
ID ignores all the evidence which implies that natural, unguided processes were responsible for most biological transitions, they can't find any other evidence to suggest there were human-like intelligences around at the time, but they still assume that natural processes could not have 'done it' and therefore it must have been some undefined and unspecified and non-human designer without any outside supporting evidence.
Is that how you do science then? And where is this work being published?
n the absence of direct observation or designer input, the ONLY POSSIBLE way to make any inferences about the Designer(s) or the processes used, is by STUDYING the DESIGN in question. And even then we may never know as exemplified by numerous artifacts.
The truth is that NO ONE in the ID community is even trying to come up with any inferences about the designer(s) or the process(es) used. Because they can't do it. AND they don't care. 'God did it' is good enough for them. And for you. Or can you show me work that you have done studying the 'design'?
The mere scope of what we are dealing with- we cannot produce living organisms- we cannot produce planets- means, to an educated person- we need to focus on other, more important questions
More important than how and when design was implemented? Really? You really believe that?
And until your alleged evolutionary hypothesis can be tested there isn't anything to refute.
It's easy to test: go out and look for a fossil that is clearly in the 'wrong' strata. Easy peasy, it takes no special knowledge or equipment. It's not expensive. And, with the proper documentation, it's irrefutable. Why aren't you doing that? You don't have to prove a negative, you just have to find a counter-example. So . . . why aren't you trying to do that?
ID posits a KNOWN cause- we KNOW what intelligent agencies can produce. We also know what nature, operating freely, is capable of.
You know what humans are capable of. That's it. You have no knowledge of any intelligent agents other than that. And you don't know completely what unguided processes are capable of. To claim you do is to try and prove they can't do something, i.e. proving a negative.
ID is going strong. There isn't anything to stop it. Your side has never produced anything. Thanks to evos we don't even know what makes an organism what it is.
ID is dying, slowly, because it hasn't produced anything new in over a decade. 'We're still studying the design . . . ' Yeah, right. You're doing nothing.
At least Intelligent Design's concepts are useful an being used. No one uses blind watchmaker evolution for anything. Materialism has never added anything to our knowledge
I think discovering the way things works is valuable in and of itself. I like truth.
At 5:20 PM,
Joe G said…
Cause and effect relationships- figure it out.
And again, if Stonehenge did NOT exist we would NEVER infer those people had the ability to create such a structure. Especially given those other sites.
No, incorrect.
You don't know anything. You can't even understand what I am saying.
If we did NOT have the structures to study we would not infer the ancients were capable of building them.
ID ignores all the evidence which implies that natural, unguided processes were responsible for most biological transitions,
There isn't anything to ignore. You are a liar.
IDists have come up with inferences about the designer and the processes. You are just an ignorant ass.
More important than how and when design was implemented?
Yes. Again, your ignorance is only amusing and not an argument.
How does knowing how and when Stonehenge was built help us understand the structure?
It's easy to test: go out and look for a fossil that is clearly in the 'wrong' strata
Except your side doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing the organisms that were fossilized.
ID posits a KNOWN cause- we KNOW what intelligent agencies can produce. We also know what nature, operating freely, is capable of.
Just because you have mental issues with that doesn't mean science has to.
You still have NOTHING.
Your ignorant whining will never refute ID.
At 5:05 PM,
JV said…
Cause and effect relationships- figure it out.
I get that. But what is your cause? You can't say. Some undefined and unspecified intelligence. Wow.
If we did NOT have the structures to study we would not infer the ancients were capable of building them.
If we didn't have the structures then we wouldn't be discussing them. You are just flailing around you know.
There isn't anything to ignore. You are a liar.
Contrary to what almost all scientists on the planet think.
IDists have come up with inferences about the designer and the processes. You are just an ignorant ass.
But not when and how and why. And, actually, I don't think you have come up with any inferences about the designer and the processes used. Certainly nothing published in anthing approaching a mainstream journal. Or even book that I can think of.
Yes. Again, your ignorance is only amusing and not an argument.
You imability to address my points is damning.
How does knowing how and when Stonehenge was built help us understand the structure?
If we know how and when and we compare that to other data we have about the human beings around at the time and the other things they created and how they lived their lives then we can start to draw a more complete picture of their culture and mind-set. Obviously. And that helps explain why they would have spent the hundreds of manhours it would have taken to build such a structure. This is all really basic stuff. Why are you asking about it? Unless you don't really understand the historical scientific process . . . .
Except your side doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing the organisms that were fossilized.
Completely dodging the challenge to go and find a fossil that is clearly in a strata that contradicts modern evolutionary theory. You do your best to sidestep a clear criticism of your stanace but, guess what . . . it's obvious what you're doing. You're not doing the obvious work to disprove modern evolutionary theory.
ID posits a KNOWN cause- we KNOW what intelligent agencies can produce. We also know what nature, operating freely, is capable of.
The only known intelligent agent that comes even close to the abilities you assume are human beings. And there is ZERO evidence they were around at . . . what time exactly? Doing what exactly? You have no evidence at all that there was any other kind of intelligent agent aside from human beings that ever existed. Period. You like to assume there was some undefined and unspecified intelligence around but there is no evidence there was except your contested design inference. That's why ID rests on special pleading: you're hypothesis rests on a massive assumption that is ill-defined or spelled out.
AND you don't know 100% what nature is capable of. To say you do is just guesswork and trying to prove a negative, i.e. that unguided forces couldn't have 'done it'.
Just because you have mental issues with that doesn't mean science has to.
When you actually do some science then we can talk about that. What science are you going to produce? I'll wait. A long time no doubt.
At 11:21 AM,
Joe G said…
Again, if your side had something beyond liars, bluffers and equivocators we wouldn't even be talking about ID.
Your side isn't doing any science. You don't even have a methodology to test your side's claims.
Your side cannot account for any of the fossils. That is because your side cannot account for any organisms.
Science is not about proof- your 100% proves that you are a scientifically illiterate ass.
Yes, we have come up with a how and why, asshole. Your ignorance, while amusing, is meaningless.
Your side is all about the how and yet has NOTHING. You are clearly a deluded loser.
There isn't even a scientific theory of evolution.
At 6:15 PM,
JV said…
Again, if your side had something beyond liars, bluffers and equivocators we wouldn't even be talking about ID.
Hardly. The basic ideas behind ID were around before unguided evolution was even proposed. So, in fact, 'intelligent design' is older than evolutionary theory. ID is just the last vestige of that kind of thinking, NOT a valid, modern alternative to evolutionary theory.
Your side isn't doing any science. You don't even have a methodology to test your side's claims.
Libraries full of evidence aside.
And I know what you're going to say but since you can't come up with a method or mechanism for influencing mutations then . . .
Your side cannot account for any of the fossils. That is because your side cannot account for any organisms.
You can't find a method or mechanism for influencing mutations so . . .
Science is not about proof- your 100% proves that you are a scientifically illiterate ass.
You cannot say that natural processes could not have accomplished what is claimed they did. To assert they couldn't is to be 100% sure and you can't do that.
Yes, we have come up with a how and why, asshole. Your ignorance, while amusing, is meaningless.
Well, I'd be interested in reading any work addressing those points. Especially the how, specific to the things you say ID is required for.
Your side is all about the how and yet has NOTHING. You are clearly a deluded loser.
'How' is important when you are talking about unguided processes. As far as having nothing . . . go to your closest university library and go to the biology section, specifically the part having to do with evolutionary theory. Look at all the books. Can you find mistakes in all the work cited in all those books?
There isn't even a scientific theory of evolution.
Uh huh. Not even all ID proponents agree with you on that.
Look, if you want to refute unguided, modern evolutionary theory then do some work and go out and find a fossil that is indisputably out of sequence. It doesn't take a lot of money or expertise or equipment. It just takes time and dedication. But no one in the ID camp is trying to do that.
Nor is anyone in the ID camp trying to find some mechanism by which mutations are influenced. They just aren't.
Nor is anyone in the ID camp trying to specify when design was implemented let alone how or why.
No one in the ID camp really cares about doing any real research because, strangely enough, 'God did it' is good enough for them. Which is why there are no ID research agendas or journals or academic departments. There are lots and lots of theological institutions which could easily spend some money on some ID research without having to worry about being vilified by the 'materialists'. But they don't do that. Why is that? Could it be that they realise that ID is ideologically dead?
Your real fight isn't with evolutionary biologists and their supporters; your real fight is with all the theologians and institutes (Like the Discovery Institute) who aren't using their budgets to pay for obvious ID research. Ask them why they aren't doing that instead of making the same tired arguments over and over again. Find out why they people who could develop and support ID research are not doing so.
I know you won't actually do that because you prefer to believe all the rhetoric you repeat. But you should ask them what's all the money going for. Ask them why nothing new has been discovered by ID researchers in the last decade at least.
At 9:33 AM,
Joe G said…
Wow, no science nor evidence for unguided evolution in any of JV's ignorant spewage.
Again, if your side had something beyond liars, bluffers and equivocators we wouldn't even be talking about ID.
Your side isn't doing any science. You don't even have a methodology to test your side's claims.
Your side cannot account for any of the fossils. That is because your side cannot account for any organisms.
Science is not about proof- your 100% proves that you are a scientifically illiterate ass.
Yes, we have come up with a how and why, asshole. Your ignorance, while amusing, is meaningless.
Your side is all about the how and yet has NOTHING. You are clearly a deluded loser.
There isn't even a scientific theory of evolution.
JV is a liar and a coward.
At 9:36 AM,
Joe G said…
You cannot say that natural processes could not have accomplished what is claimed they did. To assert they couldn't is to be 100% sure and you can't do that.
You are an ignorant ass. ALL design inferences require nature be swept clean, FIRST. That goes for archaeology, forensic science, etc.
And science does NOT mandate proof, so your "100%" just exposes your ignorance. And your ignorance is meaningless.
Go to the library, JV- I bet that you cannot find anything that supports the claims of blind watchmaker evolution. So shut the fuck up.
At 4:42 PM,
JV said…
Wow, no science nor evidence for unguided evolution in any of JV's ignorant spewage.
Since we were talking about ID and its claims I love that you haven't disputed any of the statements I've made about there being no ID research or research agenda. Nor have you confronted the fact that part of the reason that no real ID research is being done is because the supporting institutions with money are not funding it?
Why is that? Maybe you should consider and address that issue instead of just repeating the same old attacks on evolutionary theory.
Your side isn't doing any science. You don't even have a methodology to test your side's claims.
Tons of research and publications to the contrary.
Your side cannot account for any of the fossils. That is because your side cannot account for any organisms.
How and when was design implemented? Can you answer that? Nope.
Science is not about proof- your 100% proves that you are a scientifically illiterate ass.
I'm not the one definitively ruling out unguided processes, you are.
Yes, we have come up with a how and why, asshole. Your ignorance, while amusing, is meaningless.
You haven't; you can't say how design was implemented or why. Saying design was a mechanism doesn't cut it. I can ask: why is the temperature in my house warmer than outside and you could say: because someone wanted it that way. But that doesn't answer any of the hard, mechanical questions. And that's why design is NOT an answer in itself. It's not just about what someone wanted, it's about how it was implemented. And you can't address that issue at all.
Your side is all about the how and yet has NOTHING. You are clearly a deluded loser.
You haven't found a mechanism whereby mutations are directed. So, I guess, they weren't.
There isn't even a scientific theory of evolution.
Yadda yadda yadda.
You are an ignorant ass. ALL design inferences require nature be swept clean, FIRST. That goes for archaeology, forensic science, etc.
Something you haven't done. Because: how can you know you've 'swept' nature clean? How do you establish that?
Go to the library, JV- I bet that you cannot find anything that supports the claims of blind watchmaker evolution. So shut the fuck up.
Volumes and volumes and volumes. Filled with research and results which you cannot find a mistake in. You aren't even trying. You're just bluffing and blustering. As usual.
As I said, if you want to disprove unguided evolutionary theory then go and find a fossil which is clearly out of place. You don't need to spend a lot of money, you don't need to have any special skills, you don't need to have specific academic credentials. You do have to do some work which you're clearly not inclined to do. You'd rather just sit at home, publishing nothing, doing no research, discovering nothing and claim victory. It doesn't work that way. No matter what you want.
At 8:19 PM,
Joe G said…
Dumbass- ID research is in the detection and study of the intelligent designs in nature.
You are just another liar and bluffing coward. In all of your alleged volumes you cannot find anything that supports your position.
Unguided evolution cannot account for any fossils, so stop it already. And absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Only a moron would think that a scavenger hunt is a scientific test.
You don't have a mechanism capable of producing anything resembling life.
Maybe you should address the OP, stop lying, stop bluffing or shut the fuck up- AGAIN
Post a Comment
<< Home