RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (16) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: For the love of Avocationist, A whole thread for some ID evidence< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Cedric Katesby



Posts: 55
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2007,10:20   

Avocationist,
                                                               
Quote
Cedric,

1. The intelligent Designer is identified

This has been beaten to death so many times and I just can't believe it still gets bandied about. No, naming the designer is not necessary to the design inference. ID is the science of design detection. That's it.

Wonderful, so Dempski does not think that the designer is "You Know Who"?  The rest of the happy campers at the Disco Institute have never entertained the thought that the designer is "You Know Who"?
Hmmm, you believe this? Seriously? Okayyyyyyyyy...
Oh, by the way, exactly how does ID go about scientifically "detecting design"?  What has been detected as "designed" and what has been detected as "not designed"?  Some examples please. :)
                                         
Quote
A solution to your existential angst it is not.

Leave my angst alone. It's sensitive!
                                         
Quote
2. The model is detailed
Certainly the paragraph presented to me at the end of Darwin's book was quite undetailed.

You forgot to mention that Darwin's book is also far too heavy and cannot be set to hip-hop music!  Seriously, let's focus on your argument for the scientific theory for ID, shall we?  The model is detailed? Splendid.  Details please. :)

(...sound of crickets chirping...)
                                       
Quote

3. The model can be refined

I think it will be. Our knowledge right now is just too low.

You think it will be?  You THINK it will be? YOU think it WILL be?  Huh??  Let's save "what you think" for another discussion, OK?  Scientific Theory for ID, please!
                                     
Quote
 I see them combing the literature constantly and finding new ideas, researches and factos ripe for furtheration.

Let's save the fascinating discussion of "what you see" "them doing" for another discussion at some unspecified time in the future OK?
Scientific theory for ID please!
                                   
Quote
4. The model is testable and falsifiable.

People are constantly claiming it has been refuted. ID, IC and all the rest. Now tell me how Darwinism is testable and falsifiable.

Hey I've got a better idea.
  How about YOU get off your lazy ass and argue that ID really is testable and falsifiable?
If you want to present a scientific theory for ID, that's kinda a must, ya know? :(
                               
Quote


5. The model can make predictions

Here's some stuff I rooted around on google for:


No, no, NO!  I don't care what google has or does not have.  I'm sure it's utterly fascinating.  Do you want to use that stuff in support your argument for ID?  Then... make...an...argument.
Don't dump on me any old crap you find off the Internet!  I don't want to do your reading for you.
 Present your argument as ****YOUR ARGUMENT****. :(
                         
Quote
Behe predicts that scientists will not uncover a continuously functional Darwinian pathway from a simple precursor to the bacterial flagellum and, moreover, any detailed evolutionary pathway that is articulated will presuppose other irreducibly complex systems. How does one test and discredit Behe’s claims? Describe a realistic, continuously functional Darwinian pathway from simple ancestor to present motor.

So, Behe makes a "prediction".
He presents no evidence FOR his "prediction".
And then he asks real scientists to disprove his "prediction".
Wow.  Just wow.
Imagine if all science could be done this easily.  No need to do research.  No need to spend time in a laboratory.  No need to any hard work.  Just watch other people do your work for you.  Golly, the "real science" of ID is just so easy, huh? Tell me, do you think other theories do the same thing?  Plate Tectonics, maybe?  Germ Theory?  Is that how we got penicillin?
Is that how real science is done?
REALLY?
Maybe we should get Behe a Nobel Prize or something! Possibly two!!
Would two be enough?
                   
Quote
My personal prediction is that epigentics and evo devo will prove that there are barriers between species; if those barriers are passable at all it will not be via undirected mutation.

What? Care to beak that down into English? And then explain how you connect your dots?  What do you mean by "undirected mutation"?  How can a scientist differentiate between "undirected mutation" and "directed mutation".  Details please.  Barriers?  What will these barriers look like. How could they possibly work?  How will we know them if we see them?  How does a team of scientists eagerly test your prediction?
(NB: This is truely, madly, deeply NOT an opportunity for you to give me a reading list or go off and google-hunt something.  It's your prediction.  You spell it out.)
               
Quote

Falsifiability

Is intelligent design falsifiable? Is Darwinism falsifiable? Yes to the first question, no to the second. Intelligent design is eminently falsifiable. Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity in biology are within the theory of intelligent design the key markers of intelligent agency. If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. In that case Occam's razor finishes off intelligent design quite nicely.

Define specified complexity.  How does a scientist recognise "specified complexity" when they peer down a miroscope or something?
"Wonderfully complex, elegant and intergrated..."

(Gee, you left out cute and fluffy) :D :D :D

What are you talking about?  Do snowflakes count in this description?  Are they "wonderfully complex, elegant and intergrated."
How about the human brain?  Does that work?
A banana?
Your left hand?
A tree?
Give me an example of something that truely is "wonderfully complex, elegant and intergrated" and something that truely is NOT "wonderfully complex, elegant and intergrated", THEN explain how you made your choices.
             
Quote

On the other hand, falsifying Darwinism, blah, blah Darwinism, blah, blah, Darwinism, blah, blah, Darwinism, blah, blah..

Avo, keep your other hand firmly in your pocket.

{Cerdic quietly passes a secret note to Avo while continuing to talk to her normally}

The secret note reads...

      I don't "trust Darwinism" either but I'm afraid of the Darwinist thought police snatching me in their black CIA 'copters and giving me a medical probe deep into my rear, so let's save our fascinating talk about your understanding of how weak the Darwinism thing is for another time, ok?

I guess I should be relieved that you spared me your recipe for blueberry pie.
Any chance of you making a scientific argument for ID at anytime this century?

{Tuneless whistling is heard. The melody is crude yet faintly recognisable}

...Born free...as..free........as the...wind...blows...

  
  459 replies since Jan. 22 2007,04:54 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (16) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]