Joined: May 2006
Back to archiving:
|<blockquote>Prima Facia evidence for the plot, substance, and need for this movie is amply provided by Glen Davidson’s posts.|
Indeed he is the poster boy for the hubris, egomania, and sophistry common to the evo community.</blockquote>
So, the puffed-up ignorant one can't make a coherent argument, and settles for dishonest ad hominems (formal fallacies) instead. Why is this so much the usual for IDists? Don't you have anything worthwhile to say at all?
<blockquote>Oh! And if Davidson or other evos chat back please refer to me as the other wireheads in the Fortune 500 who worked for me in my executive capacity did prior to my retirement… Mr. Eaton Sir is adequate.</blockquote>
I'm sure that Eaton-the-dullard will do well enough. No doubt it's among the more charitable terms that someone so lacking in manners and intelligence has been called.
As far as the rest of Eaton's pablum, it's splattered all over the web like anything else that requires a strong cleaning solution. Now, if Eaton ever has anything intelligent to say, like actually answering the substantive posts that I made, rather than showing off his overweening ignorance, the change would do us all good. Indeed, I'd like to receive one intelligent reply from an IDist, instead of loathsome and hateful fallacies which are the best that Eaton can manage.
I make intelligent comments, the IDists never once address what I write, instead only attacking me out of their envy of anyone they can't challenge. And they pretend that it is we who are choking off debate, when we're the only ones actually engaging in debate. It's a poor showing that pompous blowhards like Eaton make.
|<blockquote>I am flabbergasted by the stupidity of evolutionists.</blockquote>|
I'm sort of amazed, but hardly surprised, that you don't answer a single substantive issue raised by myself or others, but write the usual unthinking diatribe that people who can't think for themselves constantly churn out.
<blockquote>They deride ID with the most closed and simple minded arguments, I feel sorry for such brainwashed people.</blockquote>
Let's see, not a single thing that you wrote in your entire post said anything that isn't seen all across the web from IDists who can't deal with the issues. You just try to shut out the issues by dull repetition of the chants you picked up from Dembski and others who avoid actual debate about the issues.
By the way, if you actually felt sorry for anybody, rather than trying to make a less-than-honest attack on them, you'd be trying to reach them instead of trying to smear them with your lack of anything substantive to say.
<blockquote>It’s sad that people who can put a cogent essay together are dumb enough to swallow the “just-so” explanations, the logical and conceptual gymnastics that pass for “proof” of evolution.</blockquote>
"It's sad" that someone can lob bombs at those he despises without in the least being able to back up his charges.
<blockquote>Then on top of that reject ID out of hand with zombie-like slogans; Here’s a hint: Saying “it’s not science” is not a trump card.</blockquote>
Then why don't you engage the actual arguments? Oh, that's right, you're IDist, and we never get anything of substance out of IDists. At least I've never seen it.
<blockquote>I doubt evolutionists all go into history class and shout down the professor all period about what they are teaching isn’t science and so it should not be taught in a science class. </blockquote>
I bet anyone with an honest interest in the issues doesn't ignore the massive number of high-level engagements of ID's "arguments" on the net, while making more empty attacks, as you happen to do.
<blockquote>In any case, ID is not a science the same way a doorstop is not a science, apples and oranges; it is an abstract idea, and whether or not it is scientific depends on how one approaches the idea.</blockquote>
Tell us how to do science with ID. That's what counts. We have a working theory, or more correctly, a working set of theories. You want us to give equal billing to something that has never been shown to work, with a theory that happens to guide and integrate biology today.
<blockquote>“I’m not a monkey’s nephew” and “duh, it’s so complicated it must have been designed” are not the pinnacles of pro-ID argument. </blockquote>
I'm afraid that we haven't seen anything higher level than that. Sure, there's higher-level obfuscations of the basic vacuity of ID, such as Dembski's and Behe's attempts to ram a false dilemma into science--the notion that if evolutionary theory fails to account for life, then ID prevails. Sorry, that's never been true. The height of ID never comes close to reaching the standards of science and forensics, which is the requirement for actual evidence of investigable causes producing investigable effects.
<blockquote>The fact of the matter is that evolution *is* just a theory (by that I mean the non-scientific def. of ‘theory’), one chock full of holes.</blockquote>
One chock full of successes, and with fewer fundamental issues in question than theories of gravity have.
<blockquote>Face it, there is no definitive evidence!</blockquote>
Is there definitive evidence for language evolution in non-literate languages? If so, there is much more evidence for biological evolution, for we have morphological evidence, DNA, fossil evidence, and recognizably different evidence of evolution between eukaryotes and prokaryotes.
<blockquote>Whenever I look at an online debate about evolution, the evolutionist side just puts a link to talkorigins about macroevolution.</blockquote>
I don't think that I ever have, mainly because most of Talkorigins isn't written very accessibly. But that's beside the point, for unless you can actually answer adequately the evidence presented at Talkorigins, your complaint fails. What is more important, none of you have begun to do the one thing needed to make ID science, which is to come up with evidence in favor of ID.
<blockquote>“Missing-link” fossils does not disprove ID!</blockquote>
The transitionals have all of the historical baggage expected in non-teleological evolution--and at the evolutionarily-predicted times for such sorts of "poor design" to be found. Archaeopteryx has teeth and a bony tail, neither of which is helpful for flight. Those have been known for quite some time, as well as the less well-developed keel than those in modern birds. What is more new is that a "critical ligamentous structure" making modern birds more efficient fliers has been found to be absent in archaeopteryx ("A critical ligamentous mechanism in the evolution of bird flight" David B. Baier, Stephen M. Gatesy & Farish A Jenkins Jr. <b>Nature</b> pp. 307-310 v.445 18 January 2007).
<blockquote>Fossils, whose significance is a matter of debate, which is not a settled matter, even if they did fit into the evolutionary timeline perfectly, STILL would not disprove ID. What if the supposed designer, just started small and then kept tweaking with its creation?</blockquote>
You mean, what if the designer made organisms with exactly the sort of fossil evidence and genetic evidence that is expected from non-teleological evolution? Well, such a being would be undetectable, for its effects would be indistinguishable from those of MET. That's why we're not really interested in how carefully you guys tweak your "designer" specifically so that it cannot be falsified by the evidence. You make "design" a meaningless concept by doing so.
<blockquote>Fossils just show that organisms changed gradually over time, they do not show that they changed only because of natural selection, etc. </blockquote>
It shows that the same "short-sighted" and inheritance-constrained changes that have occurred in the crown groups also exist in the earlier organisms. Also, nearly all species that have ever lived have gone extinct, as you would expect from unguided evolution. Exactly why a "designer" would make australopithecines, H. habilis, H. erectus, H. neanderthalis, and H. floresiensis only for them to go extinct in roughly the same pattern as you'd get from non-teleological evolution remains just one of those many unfathomable ideas of ID. In fact, because you guys are so intent on denying any sort of criteria that could actually point toward "design", everything in ID remains obscure and unreachable by science.
What I'd like to ask is, why do IDists think that design and non-teleological evolution produce indistinguishable results? Do they really think that genetic algorithms are used simply to mimic rational design processes? Do they not understand that the substantially different results found in evolution vs. those found in known design processes are being exploited via genetic algorithms?
It was life that showed us another route than "intelligent design" to discover successful strategies, evolutionary processes utilizing a sort of "natural selection." Now we have that capability within our repertoire of instrumentalities, and it is utilized precisely where the complexities are too great for our rational abilities. Which is interesting, because, of course, life also is beyond our rational abilities thus far (I don't think that if Venter is successful that I'll have to say anything different). Indeed, it is evolution that can deal with complexities beyond those understood by the fairly simple rationalities of the human mind (not true of all aspects of complexity, but important in many thus far, despite our computational enhancement of our rational capabilities).
The huge difference between design and biological evolution is that the former readily yields evidence for rational thinking in its processes in by far the most cases, while biological evolution lacks any evidence for rational planning (that is, while sometimes evolution and intelligence can come to similar "ends", any observaable differentiation leaves life (life that hasn't been manipulated by us, that is) on the non-rational side of the "production process")
<blockquote>It seems like only way to really show evolution is to show with a mathematical model that statistically it is possible for natural selection, etc., to cause an organism to become increasingly complex in the alloted time.</blockquote>
Real science pays attention to the predictions made by a theory, and accepts the theory that agrees best with those explanatory predictions until something better comes along. One of the problems of ID is that it wishes to change the rules of science (more coherently than traditional creationism does, for the latter's attacks on science are generally piecemeal), which is the truly grave threat to science and society hypothetically posed by ID.
<blockquote>This has NEVER been shown, Mathematical models show quite the opposite, that even if creatures could evolve “naturally” the way they have, it would take orders of magnitude longer for that to happen.</blockquote>
Has language evolution been shown to be possible by computer simulations? Of course not, it is too complex to be properly modeled at this time, as is biological evolution. ID models don't count, by the way, since they assume very narrow target areas, much narrower than can be shown from the evidence (the evidence at least hints that they're quite wrong in their assumptions).
<blockquote>Now given that there is no evidence of evolution,</blockquote>
It is not given that there is no evidence of evolution. You haven't begun to answer the three major predictions I listed for evolution in post #99, by which I definitely meant (and noted) non-teleological evolution.
<blockquote>that does not prove ID, but assuming that physics and the laws of the physical universe, statistics, logic, etc., have not dramatically changed during the “life” of the known universe, this intuitively suggests that a designer is behind the variety and complexity of organisms on earth.</blockquote>
Since you have absolutely no evidence in favor of "design" of organisms, whatever "intuition" you might have about it is insufficient to make ID worthy of consideration.
<blockquote>That is what makes ID worthwhile.</blockquote>
An intuition sans evidence makes ID worthwhile? That is what is scary about IDists, no evidence and an "intuition" is supposed to be the equal of an abundantly evidenced and useful theory.
<blockquote>For all the picking-on ID strawmen, some of you guys need to pick on evolution a bit.</blockquote>
For all of the claims that you make, it would be nice if you could back up just one of them. You know, with evidence.
<blockquote>There is a universe of ideas out there between evolution-explains-everything and bible-thumping.</blockquote>
Evolution hardly explains everything (a strawman fallacy on your part). However, it is the only scientific theory explaining the inherently genealogical-like taxonomies found even prior to acceptance of evolutionary theory, the different modes of evolution between eukaryotes and prokaryotes, and why pterosaur, bat, and bird wings are all adaptations of legs, and not design either from first principles or from previously existing wings.
<blockquote>The way things are run, evolution is not a science, where is the falsifiability?</blockquote>
In the taxonomical structures, first of all. And I've mentioned plenty more, though you ignore whatever doesn't comply with your a priori assumptions.
<blockquote>Any evidence that does not fit into evolutionary theory is ignored.</blockquote>
I'd like to see a single statement of yours that can be substantiated, including that one.
<blockquote>Where are the repeatable experiments?</blockquote>
In the journals. Like most of science, experiments have to extrapolated to areas which are practically or theoretically beyond experimentation, but of course the experiments have been done.
<blockquote>No, showing bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics or that they will evolve into a slightly different species does not prove that evolution is responsible for all of the variety and complexity of life.</blockquote>
I actually made that point at Pharyngula recently. However, few of us suppose that antibiotic resistance is the whole of the evidence (rather, evolutionary theory ties humans and bacteria together ecologically, where ID would require malaria (<i>Plasmodium falciparum</i>) to have been designed, apparently with the purpose of infecting humans), rather we point to the predictions of evolution which have been tested but not falsified in the testing. Indeed, I wrote a good deal on this very forum about a number of these issues, but have received nothing other than dull repetitions of ID talking points in reply, along with rather pointed hatred from several of these supposed "Christians". Well, what's new?
If you had science, you'd be telling us how ID provides cause and effect explanations of what we see, and how to do science with these required explanations. Lacking any science, you have a lot of untrue statements about evolution and those of us who care about science. You completely ignore the arguments and evidence brought forward in order to falsely claim that we have not done so. And so ID goes, never providing the requisite evidence, always putting out vast array of unsubstantiated tripe.
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy