Joined: April 2006
|Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 19 2009,16:47)|
|Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 12 2009,16:25)|
|Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 12 2009,11:00)|
|Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 05 2009,02:23)|
|Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 04 2009,10:41)|
 Wes not one of those links demonstrates that blind,undirected processes, such as random mutations and natural selection, can account for living organisms nor their diversity.
 The book "Why Intelligent Design Fails" is full of strawman arguments.
 In order to refute ID you actually have to demonstrate an understanding of it.
 You also have to be able to show an understanding of the debate.
One freebie for "JoeG"...
1. "refuting the design inference" was the topic. Pathetic detail in support of evolutionary science is given by others elsewhere. However, showing that the claims made concerning "design detection" are ill-founded does not require the establishment of other concepts. The claims I'm making -- and supporting -- concern the logical and empirical faults in Dembskian "design inference" arguments. Nice attempt at digression, though. How often does that work for you?
2. I haven't seen anybody publish anything in the technical literature that would substantiate that claim. Nor am I responsible, in particular, for the other contributions in the anthology. An actual contribution to the discussion would have attempted to advance an argument of use of strawman on my part. For any substantiation of your claim, let's see the complete bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed literature, please.
3. Been there, done that. While dismissal may seem an effective tactic to you, I'll trust that the readers will take my points. Given the absence of published responses in the technical literature and the existence of citations, it seems that they have done so.
4. Been there, done that. Given that I have been a participant in the "debate" (NTSE 1997, "Interpreting Evolution" 2001, 4th World Skeptics Conference 2002, Greer-Heard Forum 2006, SMU 2006, etc.), it would seem distinctly odd to hold that I somehow am not competent to enter into the discussion. Even Dembski hasn't gone that far. See above about "dismissal" as a tactic.
One begins to see Dembski's point about discussion on the Internet, though it is far more appropriately aimed at advocates of his ideas than the original targets.
I note that you did not provide any publications that address the arguments I've made. It is interesting that when it comes to technical articles on the topic of "design inference", I have two, and Dembski has zero.
You don't have any evidence that undirected/ non-target oriented processes can account for living organisms nor their diversity.
You cannot even provide a testable hypothesis based on those types of mechanisms.
That is why the vast majority of people do not buy into your nonsense.
Hey look, it's Joe G the coward, who throws around a bunch of insults and makes a lot of unsupported assertions, then bravely runs away!
Hey look it's occam's afterbirth the douche-drip.
You still don't have anything that would support your position, do you?
You don't have any idea if mutations can accumulate such that new, useful protein machinery is constructed. And still nothing for changing body plans.
And you still blame me for your short-comings and ignorance.
I don't blame you for anything but being a cowardly hit-and-run prick, Joe.
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"