Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > IDC != AntiEvolution?

Pages: (6) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,09:34    Why can't evolutionists afford to have Intelligent Design presented in public school classrooms- even if it is an elective and not presented in science classes? Because if ID is presented properly the kids would find out that ID is NOT anti-evolution. In What is evolution?, Larry Moran, professor, biologist, evolutionist and staunch anti-IDist, all but proves that neither ID NOR Creation (baraminology) are anti-evolution. I say that because both allow for changes in allele frequency. Both allow for populations to change via mutation, heredity and differential survival. The only thing ID argues against is blind watchmaker-type processes (accumulating genetic accidents) having sole dominion over the changes. IOW the debate is over mechanisms- designed to evolve (ID)- think targeted search (weasel)- vs evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents (evolutionism). So why do people need to misrepresent ID? That is much easier than actually having to do something. And it works as long as ignorance prevails. And that is why they cannot afford to have it presented- their lies will be exposed. I just started reading "Why Intelligent Design Fails", and have already encountered numerous strawman arguments. Gary Hurd, for example, talking about the EF says that design is the default once chance and regularity have been eliminated. Yet the flowchart he copied says that isn't so. Ya see not only do chance and regularity need to be eliminated but a specifcation has to be met. But anyway I jumped to Gary's chapter because he is a familiar anti-IDist. So why do people insist on saying that ID is anti-evolution? -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:01    So, you're not a cdesign proponentsist, then, Joe G? Fine. ID is science. Do some fucking science, already.  All we hear is "evolution couldn't do something, at some point, and needed some interference, somehow, by someone or something".  Or is connecting the dots too much like taking the bait? Come on, buddy, let's see some details. Which designer did what, how did s/he do it, and when?  And your evidence for this (aside from "I don't (want to) think it could have happened by itself") is... what? Time to quite the bluffing, Joe. Lay the cards down.  Or are you just going to revert to grade-school "I know you are but what am I" taunts again? You want ID to be the default position, so as soon as we say "We don't know yet how this happened", you jump in and somehow think this proves there's a magic pixie in the genome somewhere You say there's ID, we say prove it. No debate circus, just evidence. Get your fucking hands dirty with something besides your own spooge for once and get the job done, already. Show us the magic pixie. Okay? Please? edit couple typos. -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:01    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34) So why do people insist on saying that ID is anti-evolution? Oh I don't know.. Cdesign proponentist "Teach the controversy" Expelled! No intelligence allowed Wedge document The DI being funded by post-millenial reconstructionists The war on "Materialism" etc, etc. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

qetzal Posts: 311 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:05    It all boils down to two fundamental problems: 1. ID is not supported by the scientific evidence. 2. To date, pretty much every attempt to teach ID has been motivated by the desire to sneak religious creationism back into science class. Both of those are excellent reasons it should not be taught as science in public classrooms. It could accurately be taught as an example of the so-called 'culture wars,' except I don't think any cdesign proponentsists want it taught that way.

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:33    Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 24 2010,10:01) So, you're not a cdesign proponentsist, then, Joe G? Fine. ID is science. Do some fucking science, already.  All we hear is "evolution couldn't do something, at some point, and needed some interference, somehow, by someone or something".  Or is connecting the dots too much like taking the bait? Come on, buddy, let's see some details. Which designer did what, how did s/he do it, and when?  And your evidence for this (aside from "I don't (want to) think it could have happened by itself") is... what? Time to quite the bluffing, Joe. Lay the cards down.  Or are you just going to revert to grade-school "I know you are but what am I" taunts again? You want ID to be the default position, so as soon as we say "We don't know yet how this happened", you jump in and somehow think this proves there's a magic pixie in the genome somewhere You say there's ID, we say prove it. No debate circus, just evidence. Get your fucking hands dirty with something besides your own spooge for once and get the job done, already. Show us the magic pixie. Okay? Please? edit couple typos. So you are an asshole then? If you hear "evolution couldn't do something" then it is because your head is up your ass. What is your evidence- you know the evidence that supports your position? Why don't you do some science already? -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:35    BTW Darwin used "Creator" (capital "C") in the sixth edition- a released version- of "On the Origins of Species". IOW according to Darwwin the theory of evolution is a creationist theory. Now I know someone will cry that Darwin explained that. Well the publishers and authors of "Of Pandas and People" explained tehir position also yet you maggots still misrepresent them. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:37    Quote (qetzal @ Feb. 24 2010,10:05) It all boils down to two fundamental problems: 1. ID is not supported by the scientific evidence. 2. To date, pretty much every attempt to teach ID has been motivated by the desire to sneak religious creationism back into science class. Both of those are excellent reasons it should not be taught as science in public classrooms. It could accurately be taught as an example of the so-called 'culture wars,' except I don't think any cdesign proponentsists want it taught that way. Too bad that is all ID has- scientific support: 1. Deepa Nath, Ritu Dhand and Angela K. Eggleston (Editors), “Building a Cell,” Nature 463, 445 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/463445a. 2. Kerry Bloom and Ajit Joglekar, “Towards building a chromosome segregation machine,” Nature 463, 446-456 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08912. 3. Timothy W. Nilsen and Brenton R. Graveley, “Expansion of the eukaryotic proteome by alternative splicing,” Nature 463, 457-463 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08909. 4. Giorgio Scita1 and Pier Paolo Di Fiore, “The endocytotic matrix,” Nature 463, 464-473 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08910. 5. Lena Ho and Gerald R. Crabtree, “Chromatin remodelling during development,” Nature 463, 474-484 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08911. 6. Daniel A. Fletcher and R. Dyche Mullins, “Cell mechanics and the cytoskeleton,” Nature 463, 485-492 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08908. Read the commentary here Alternative gene splicing is only explainable via design- intentional, purposeful design. It is controlled by the software evolutionary biologists don't know exists... -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:38    Quote If you hear "evolution couldn't do something" .... Its not like they've tried to write books on the limits of evolution, nor expressed incredulity on the evolution of eyes, flagella, Man, etc. Quote What is your evidence- you know the evidence that supports your position? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Quote Why don't you do some science already? Too busy teaching at my bible college and writing books for rubes. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:38    Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,10:01) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34) So why do people insist on saying that ID is anti-evolution? Oh I don't know.. Cdesign proponentist "Teach the controversy" Expelled! No intelligence allowed Wedge document The DI being funded by post-millenial reconstructionists The war on "Materialism" etc, etc. So Richtard doesn't understand evolution. And he thinks that his ignorance should refect on ID. Amazing... -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:40    Quote Well the publishers and authors of "Of Pandas and People" explained tehir position also yet you maggots still misrepresent them. cdesign proponentsists, Joe. Cut and Paste. Thank goodness the creationists are stupid enough to drop a wedge shaped clanger once in a while. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:40    Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,10:38) Quote If you hear "evolution couldn't do something" .... Its not like they've tried to write books on the limits of evolution, nor expressed incredulity on the evolution of eyes, flagella, Man, etc. Quote What is your evidence- you know the evidence that supports your position? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Quote Why don't you do some science already? Too busy teaching at my bible college and writing books for rubes. Richtard, IDists write books on the limitations of the blind watchmaker. Again your ignorance is not a refutation. Also evidence for Common Descent is not evidence for the blind watchmaker. IOW Richtard once again you prove to be a dolt. Are you proud of that? -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:41    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:38) Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,10:01) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34) So why do people insist on saying that ID is anti-evolution? Oh I don't know.. Cdesign proponentist "Teach the controversy" Expelled! No intelligence allowed Wedge document The DI being funded by post-millenial reconstructionists The war on "Materialism" etc, etc. So Richtard doesn't understand evolution. And he thinks that his ignorance should refect on ID. Amazing... non-sequtar. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:41    Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,10:40) Quote Well the publishers and authors of "Of Pandas and People" explained tehir position also yet you maggots still misrepresent them. cdesign proponentsists, Joe. Cut and Paste. Thank goodness the creationists are stupid enough to drop a wedge shaped clanger once in a while. CREATOR Richtard. Darwin used the wrod in a RELEASED version making the theory of evolution a creationist theory. I can't help if you are too stupid to undersatnd that... -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:42    Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,10:41) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:38) Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,10:01)   Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34) So why do people insist on saying that ID is anti-evolution? Oh I don't know.. Cdesign proponentist "Teach the controversy" Expelled! No intelligence allowed Wedge document The DI being funded by post-millenial reconstructionists The war on "Materialism" etc, etc. So Richtard doesn't understand evolution. And he thinks that his ignorance should refect on ID. Amazing... non-sequtar. Richtard, I understand that you don't like having your ignoirance exposed. Perhaps you shouldn't post ignorance then... -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:44    However if we hold the theory of evolution to the SAME standard then it becomes obvious that it too is a Creation theory: Quote There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.- Charles Darwin in “The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection” last chapter, last sentence -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:45    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:42) Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,10:41) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:38)   Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,10:01)   Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34) So why do people insist on saying that ID is anti-evolution? Oh I don't know.. Cdesign proponentist "Teach the controversy" Expelled! No intelligence allowed Wedge document The DI being funded by post-millenial reconstructionists The war on "Materialism" etc, etc. So Richtard doesn't understand evolution. And he thinks that his ignorance should refect on ID. Amazing... non-sequtar. Richtard, I understand that you don't like having your ignoirance exposed. Perhaps you shouldn't post ignorance then... Oh, let me play.* That is such a homosexual thing to write, Joe. Have you fallen out with your boyfriend again? Is that why you're sad and angry? -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:48    Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,10:45) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:42) Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,10:41)   Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:38)   Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 24 2010,10:01)     Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:34) So why do people insist on saying that ID is anti-evolution? Oh I don't know.. Cdesign proponentist "Teach the controversy" Expelled! No intelligence allowed Wedge document The DI being funded by post-millenial reconstructionists The war on "Materialism" etc, etc. So Richtard doesn't understand evolution. And he thinks that his ignorance should refect on ID. Amazing... non-sequtar. Richtard, I understand that you don't like having your ignoirance exposed. Perhaps you shouldn't post ignorance then... Oh, let me play.* That is such a homosexual thing to write, Joe. Have you fallen out with your boyfriend again? Is that why you're sad and angry? Richtard, Thank you for proving that you cannot even stay on-topic and you can't even address the opening post. Obviously you have no idea what evolution is even though I posted a link that explains it. -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

cogzoid Posts: 234 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:51    Joe, Care to demonstration of a calculation of CSI, or FCSI, or CFSI, or whatever jumble of letters you want? What's the SFCI of a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich?  Please show your work. Thanks!

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:51    I am not surprised that Joe cannot read very well. Dembski's Explanitory filter concluded "Design" by rejecting necessity, and then chance. -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:55    Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 24 2010,10:51) I am not surprised that Joe cannot read very well. Dembski's Explanitory filter concluded "Design" by rejecting necessity, and then chance. That is false. Once chance and necessity have been cleared there is still the specification that has to be met. IOW Gary- you have reading comprehension issues. explanatory filter See that last decision node? -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:56    Quote (cogzoid @ Feb. 24 2010,10:51) Joe, Care to demonstration of a calculation of CSI, or FCSI, or CFSI, or whatever jumble of letters you want? What's the SFCI of a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich?  Please show your work. Thanks! Please explain what that has to do with the topic of the thread. Or just admit that you are an asshole... -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,10:56    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,07:34) So why do people insist on saying that ID is anti-evolution? William Dembski and Jonathan Wells writing in their recent book, “The Design of Life” deny common ancestry as it is used by mainstream biologists. They wrote that ID “neither requires nor excludes speciation,” and that “ID is sometimes confused with a static view of species, as though species were designed to be immutable.” These remarks would seem to leave the door open to common ancestry. But, in their concluding remarks on speciation, they insist that “there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce.” So ID accepts speciation, but not by mutation, and natural selection- not by biology. No, rather their claim is that, “intelligence can itself be a source of biological novelties that lead to macroevolutionary changes. In this way, intelligent design is compatible with speciation. (pg. 109)” Both authors are on record that the “intelligent designer” is the biblical God. So, their “speciation” is exclusively the result of Devine intervention. These acknowledged intellectual leaders of the ID movement wasted a great deal of ink just to say “goddidit.” Henry Morris or Duane Gish said it clearly and honestly. -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:01    Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 24 2010,10:56) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,07:34) So why do people insist on saying that ID is anti-evolution? William Dembski and Jonathan Wells writing in their recent book, “The Design of Life” deny common ancestry as it is used by mainstream biologists. They wrote that ID “neither requires nor excludes speciation,” and that “ID is sometimes confused with a static view of species, as though species were designed to be immutable.” These remarks would seem to leave the door open to common ancestry. But, in their concluding remarks on speciation, they insist that “there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce.” So ID accepts speciation, but not by mutation, and natural selection- not by biology. No, rather their claim is that, “intelligence can itself be a source of biological novelties that lead to macroevolutionary changes. In this way, intelligent design is compatible with speciation. (pg. 109)” Both authors are on record that the “intelligent designer” is the biblical God. So, their “speciation” is exclusively the result of Devine intervention. These acknowledged intellectual leaders of the ID movement wasted a great deal of ink just to say “goddidit.” Henry Morris or Duane Gish said it clearly and honestly. Evolution is much more than common ancestry Gary. ID accepts speciation via mutation Gary. It is as simple as Dawkin's weasel- designed to evolve Gary. I went over this in the OP Gary. Your ignorance does not refute what I posted. Perhaps you should actually read the OP... -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:02    What does "the blind watchmaker didit" have to offer? That is all you have... -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:04    Joe, what is the calculated CSI value for a baseball? Show us the math, OK? -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:07    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 24 2010,11:04) Joe, what is the calculated CSI value for a baseball? Show us the math, OK? Afterbirth, Do you think that your being an asshole helps you make your case? Are you too stupid to stay focused on the OP? -------------- "Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth "Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:11    Hey Joe, What would you teach in an inteligent design course?

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:12    oh why don't we just invent all sorts of empirically equivalent ad hoc assertions about all sorts of things.  that will clear things up won't it? -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:12    OK Joe, here is my recommended course outline for teaching ID in school: "An unknown Designer or Designers with unknown powers at an unknown time with an unknown mechanism and unknown source of materials for unknown reasons manufactured this biological structure". That should take all of 30 seconds to present. Anything else you think we should add to the course? -------------- "CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way" "All the evidence supports Creation baraminology" "If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic." "Jews and Christians are Muslims." - Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

Tom Ames Posts: 238 Joined: Dec. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:13    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,08:37) Quote (qetzal @ Feb. 24 2010,10:05) It all boils down to two fundamental problems: 1. ID is not supported by the scientific evidence. 2. To date, pretty much every attempt to teach ID has been motivated by the desire to sneak religious creationism back into science class. Both of those are excellent reasons it should not be taught as science in public classrooms. It could accurately be taught as an example of the so-called 'culture wars,' except I don't think any cdesign proponentsists want it taught that way. Too bad that is all ID has- scientific support: 1. Deepa Nath, Ritu Dhand and Angela K. Eggleston (Editors), “Building a Cell,” Nature 463, 445 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/463445a. 2. Kerry Bloom and Ajit Joglekar, “Towards building a chromosome segregation machine,” Nature 463, 446-456 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08912. 3. Timothy W. Nilsen and Brenton R. Graveley, “Expansion of the eukaryotic proteome by alternative splicing,” Nature 463, 457-463 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08909. 4. Giorgio Scita1 and Pier Paolo Di Fiore, “The endocytotic matrix,” Nature 463, 464-473 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08910. 5. Lena Ho and Gerald R. Crabtree, “Chromatin remodelling during development,” Nature 463, 474-484 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08911. 6. Daniel A. Fletcher and R. Dyche Mullins, “Cell mechanics and the cytoskeleton,” Nature 463, 485-492 (28 January 2010); doi:10.1038/nature08908. Read the commentary here Alternative gene splicing is only explainable via design- intentional, purposeful design. It is controlled by the software evolutionary biologists don't know exists... Let me just say, as someone who works in this field, reads, understand and writes these kinds of papers (and knows some of the authors) that you have absolutely no clue about the content of the papers you cite. You appear to have picked these papers based solely by title. You are an uneducated, ignorant blowhard. And you are the face of intelligent design. THAT'S why we don't want ID taught in science classes: the only people available to teach it are intellectual bankrupts such as yourself. -------------- -Tom Ames

Pages: (6) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard