Joined: Oct. 2009
Just figured I'd respond to Joe's comments here...
|At 7:11 AM, Joe G said…|
So OgreMKV equivicates "evolution" with the theory of evolution.
What a moron...
So, you seem to be saying that the fact of evolution has nothing to do with the theory of evolution? Interesting...
Of course you can’t Joe, because ‘materialistic evolution’ is the exact same thing as ‘evolution’.
Not according to the definitions I provided. And seeing you failed to provide any definitions off evolution YOU CAN'T SAY!
Joe, according to the definitions YOU PROVIDED, the sum total of differences between materialistic evolution and evolution is that materialists ignore any chance of the supernatural being involved... maybe because there is absolutely no evidence for it.
I'll repeat my statement from my rebuttal. ID would be fine with evolution, if scientists would just admit that evolution is controlled by God.
At 7:14 AM, Joe G said…
But that’s not correct; at least it’s not correct with the prevailing view of evolution that new species and novelties can come about without intelligence.
No shit dumbass- that is the DIFFERENCE between the THEORY of evolution and ID. However we were discussing "evolution" not the theory- there is a difference you dolt.
So very, very sad Joe.
Thank you for proving that ID is anti-evolution. If there is a character that ID describes one way and evolution describes another way, as long as both cannot be correct at the same time, then the two are competitors, opposites, rivals, ANTI- each other.
Thanks again Joe. I'm glad you've seen the light.
At 7:16 AM, Joe G said…
There is no version of evolutionary theory that supports any design.
There is intelligent design evolution, front loaded evolution and a prescribed evolutionary hypothesis. That is three versions that support design right there.
I'm sorry, Joe. I thought you understood that I meant any 'real, scientifically supported version of evolution'.
I really don't consider your (and other ID/creationists) strawmen of evolution to be legitimate.
At 7:17 AM, Joe G said…
And BTW seeing that you failed to provide a definition of "evolution" you cannot say it excludes design. Not one of the definitions I provided makes that claim. And you aren't in any position to make that claim.
Why should I provide a defintion Joe? You know what evolution is and I even agreed with your definitions.
Besides, this isn't about evolution, it's about ID.
At 8:33 AM, Joe G said…
If, Demsbki (and Joe for that matter), think that biological novelties require an intelligence, then they should examine the Scottish fold breed of cat.
Artificial selection- there was a designer involved.
Really, so Susie (the first scottish fold cat ever) who was born in a barn, was designed.
Tell me Joe, who designed her? When was she designed (not year, but when was her genome designed, stage of life will be fine)?
Do you have any evidence that this is so?
Are you willing to commit some money to a laboratory examination of the genomes in the test I described in order to see if the mutation that causes the scottish fold ear is within the realm of simple evolutionary theory?
At 8:35 AM, Joe G said…
In other words, ID is OK with all of the aspects of evolution, but it’s not OK that it happens naturally without a designer being present.
Wrong again- the designer(s) need not be present. Are computer programmers present and at theb ready standing by your computer? Or can it function without their presence?
Joe, I'm saying that ID requires a designer. Or are you changing what ID is... again?
At 8:39 AM, Joe G said…
If ID is perfectly fine with every part of evolution, as Joe says, then why are virtually all ID arguments, anti-evolution arguments?
They're not. They are anti-blind watchmaker arguments and there is a difference.
It appars that I was correct and Ogre "learned" about ID from reading the trial transcripts and reading evotard sound bites.
No Joe, I learned about ID by reading what the actual inventors of the ID movement said.
If you weren't cherrypicking the things you say about them, then you would understand that.
Isn't it interesting how these types of people, once they get started on this path, even have to cherrypick and quotemine their supporters?
That's one thing I've learned through this activity.
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.