Timothy Horton is a LIAR and Ignoramus
-
Tiny Timmy Horton is a liar and ignoramus. His latest lie is a reused lie:
Next, design is a mechanism. And it is falsifiable just by demonstrating that nature is capable of producing what someone says was intelligently designed. Predictions? The same as archaeology and forensic science- namely that when intelligent agencies act in nature they tend to leave traces of their actions behind.
So, unlike Timmy's position, ID is both testable and potentially falsifiable.
Tiny Timmy Horton is a liar and proud of it.
Tiny Timmy Horton is a liar and ignoramus. His latest lie is a reused lie:
But merely saying 'Design!" doesn’t explain anything. It provides no mechanisms, no timeline, makes no predictions, is not falsifiable.Wow. Saying something was designed tells us quite a bit. For one we have eliminated nature as a possible causal agent. Next we know there was some intent/ purpose.
Next, design is a mechanism. And it is falsifiable just by demonstrating that nature is capable of producing what someone says was intelligently designed. Predictions? The same as archaeology and forensic science- namely that when intelligent agencies act in nature they tend to leave traces of their actions behind.
So, unlike Timmy's position, ID is both testable and potentially falsifiable.
Tiny Timmy Horton is a liar and proud of it.
posted by Joe G @ 9:47 AM
12 Comments:
At 3:27 PM,
JV said…
Predictions? The same as archaeology and forensic science- namely that when intelligent agencies act in nature they tend to leave traces of their actions behind.
So, aside from the contested designed biological structures what traces have the designer(s) left behind?
At 9:07 AM,
Joe G said…
The people who contest the design inference do not have anything to account for what we observe. So they can get stuffed.
The people who contest the design inference don't even have a methodology to test their claim and they definitely don't have any predictions based on the mechanisms posited.
At 11:02 AM,
Joe G said…
If unguided evolution isn't capable then it was guided. And unguided evolution isn't capable.
At 11:45 AM,
JV said…
You didn't answer my question: aside from the contested designed biological structures what traces have the designer(s) left behind?
The people who contest the design inference do not have anything to account for what we observe. So they can get stuffed.
Universal common descent with variation.
The people who contest the design inference don't even have a methodology to test their claim and they definitely don't have any predictions based on the mechanisms posited.
Unguided evolutionary theory predicts intermediate forms like Tiktaalik and tells you which strata to look for them.
Unguided evolutionary theory predicts you won't find any modern life forms in older strata.
Unguided evolutionary theory predicts phenomena like ring species.
Unguided evolutionary theory predicts growing resistance to antibiotics.
If unguided evolution isn't capable then it was guided. And unguided evolution isn't capable.
Disputed by the vast majority of working biologists.
At 12:27 PM,
Joe G said…
Universal common descent with variation.
WHAT GETS VARIED? You never say because you are an ignorant asshole.
Unguided evolutionary theory predicts intermediate forms like Tiktaalik
LIAR.
nguided evolutionary theory predicts you won't find any modern life forms in older strata.
LIAR
Unguided evolutionary theory predicts phenomena like ring species.
LIAR
Unguided evolutionary theory predicts growing resistance to antibiotics.
LIAR
Disputed by the vast majority of working biologists.
No one cares as the assholes who dispute don't have anything to explain what we observe.
At 12:28 PM,
Joe G said…
You didn't answer my question: aside from the contested designed biological structures what traces have the designer(s) left behind?
The earth/ moon system. The laws of nature. And I will note that you don't have anything to account for biology
At 1:39 PM,
JV said…
WHAT GETS VARIED? You never say because you are an ignorant asshole.
Gosh, I thought you'd read lots of books on evolutionary theory. Darwin noticed physiological variation; we now know there are also genomic variations.
LIAR.
Not exactly a scientific refutation.
LIAR.
Not exactly a scientific refutation.
LIAR.
Not exactly a scientific refutation.
LIAR.
Not exactly a scientific refutation.
No one cares as the assholes who dispute don't have anything to explain what we observe.
So you agree that a vast majority of working biologists disagree with your positions.
The earth/ moon system. The laws of nature. And I will note that you don't have anything to account for biology
Umm . . . the moon is slowly moving away from the earth so . . . since it's a dynamic system . . . what part is designed?
The laws of nature . . . how do you know they can be anything other than what they are? Who says they were 'fine tuned'?
Lots of things account for biology. For example:
In the last two thousand years (or less) humans have produce a wide variety of plants derived from a base, wild Brassica via selective breeding. That is: exploiting minor physiological variations between generations. And we've now got a vast assortment of widely different phenotypes, derived in recorded history, purely based on selection processes. Guided but still only based on the physiological variations observed.
At 7:01 PM,
Joe G said…
Gosh, I thought you'd read lots of books on evolutionary theory. Darwin noticed physiological variation; we now know there are also genomic variations.
Too vague. It's as if you are just an idiot.
Not exactly a scientific refutation.
There wasn't anything to refute, dipshit. You haven't posted anything scientific. So the Hitchens gambit applies.
Umm . . . the moon is slowly moving away from the earth so . . . since it's a dynamic system . . . what part is designed?
Already been over that. Read my blog
The laws of nature . . . how do you know they can be anything other than what they are? Who says they were 'fine tuned'?
You have nothing to account for them.
In the last two thousand years (or less) humans have produce a wide variety of plants derived from a base, wild Brassica via selective breeding.
HUMANs. Yes, HUMANs can do a great deal but nature would never be able to do it.
At 1:55 AM,
JV said…
Gosh, I thought you'd read lots of books on evolutionary theory. Darwin noticed physiological variation; we now know there are also genomic variations.
Too vague. It's as if you are just an idiot.
It is a general concept. What do you want, particular variations for particular transitions?
The laws of nature . . . how do you know they can be anything other than what they are? Who says they were 'fine tuned'?
You have nothing to account for them.
And you account for them how?
HUMANs. Yes, HUMANs can do a great deal but nature would never be able to do it.
Why not? Not at the same speed obviously. AND the point is that there is enough unguided variation generated for selection to work on. Human generated selection and natural selection both work with the same unguided variation.
At 11:12 AM,
Joe G said…
Your "general concept" is too vague and as such not scientific.
ID accounts for the laws via DESIGN- meaning they were intended and serve a purpose.
Why can't nature produce what we do? Because it is incapable, duh. And only an imbecile thinks that artificial selection, which is actual selection and natural selection, which is a process of elimination work the same. And your question-begging is duly noted
At 12:32 PM,
JV said…
ID accounts for the laws via DESIGN- meaning they were intended and serve a purpose.
And what purpose would that be?
Why can't nature produce what we do? Because it is incapable, duh. And only an imbecile thinks that artificial selection, which is actual selection and natural selection, which is a process of elimination work the same. And your question-begging is duly noted
They both eleminate some gene combinations from the gene pool. AND, again, they both work from the same naturally occurring variation.
You want natural selection to be 'incapable' but there's no reason to suspect that is the case. Again, it operates more slowly and less specifically (which explains the intense amount of 'waste' generated) but it seems perfectly capable. The fossil record bears that out. The genomic record bears that out. The bio-geographic distributions bear that out. The morphological record bear that out. All of that is due to unguided processes since no guiding mechanisms have been found and mutations have been found to be random with respect to fitness.
At 12:40 PM,
Joe G said…
The purpose is for the existence of the universe and us, duh.
Selection and elimination are very different.
Natural selection is incapable. There isn't any reason to think otherwise.
The fossil record? Natural selection cannot account for it. Bio-geographic distributions support Creation and the fact that organisms were designed with the ability to adapt and evolve.
Unguided processes are incapable and no one can demonstrate otherwise. And "random with respect to fitness" is nonsense seeing that there had to be plenty that were beneficial, duh.
Post a Comment
<< Home