RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (356) < ... 192 193 194 195 196 [197] 198 199 200 201 202 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 4, Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Patrick



Posts: 549
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2012,17:44   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 17 2012,12:23)
I read UPB's argument somewhat differently.

1. All semiotic systems are the products of design.
2. The genetic code plus translation is a semiotic system.
3. Therefore the genetic code plus translation is designed.

This strikes me as wrong not because of a logical error, but because he assumes that which he is ultimately trying to prove.

There is another construction he has used

1. All known instances of semiotic systems are designed.
2. Therefore all instances are designed.

That does appear to be his argument in some cases.

keiths provided another summary of Upright BiPed's argument at Lizzie's blog several weeks ago:
Quote
He’s arguing instead that 1) all semiotic systems are irreducibly complex (and therefore designed), 2) that the protein synthesis system is a semiotic system, and 3) that the protein synthesis system is therefore designed.
Expanding my earlier synopsis:

X1. All irreducibly complex systems are designed.
X2. All semiotic systems are irreducibly complex.
X3. Therefore, all semiotic systems are designed.

Y1. A system involving representation(s) and protocol(s) is a semiotic system.
Y2. Protein synthesis involves a representation and a protocol.
Y3. Therefore, protein synthesis is a semiotic system.

Z1. All semiotic systems are designed (by X3).
Z2. Protein synthesis is a semiotic system (by Y3).
Z3. Therefore, the protein synthesis system is designed.

Because it hinges on the discredited premise X1, Upright’s argument is in big trouble. Evidently he understands this — hence his obstinate refusal to clarify things.

Upright BiPed has refused to confirm or deny that this is an accurate distillation of his voluminous prose, despite repeated requests to do so.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4241
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2012,17:45   

Too much. Now BarryA has taken up debating me from a distance:
         
Quote
DWG:

I see:
     
Quote
Bill is saying that IF you can demonstrate (and not just assert) that no other process can possibly produce the material observations, then your logic is correct.


Stop right there, we are dealing with an empirical situation. No inductive or empirical fact or principle can be established beyond possible contradiction...

Sack up or shut up, Barry. TSZ is just a click away.

ETA: Or, have the courage to un-ban me.

Also ETA: I see that Barry has built his new OP by quoting KF in response to David Gibson's (correct) paraphrase directed to UB who is debating me from a safe distance, nestled within the bosom of UD. (Not that I am in principle opposed to nestling bosoms.)

Poltroons.

Edited by Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 17 2012,20:16

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3560
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2012,19:34   

I guess the game's up. Evolution has finally been refuted by cold, hard logic.

Quote
MP:

I need to say one last thing.

The blatant disrespect and disregard for duties of care to the truth and fairness that are evident above point straight to the amorality of evolutionary materialism and its proneness to ruthless nihilistic factionalism that Plato Warned against 2350 years ago.

Think about that before you play strawman tactics games again.

KF


Edited by midwifetoad on Aug. 17 2012,19:35

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3560
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2012,21:51   

Derriereington plagerizes me. I said:

Quote

1. All known instances of semiotic systems are designed.
2. Therefore all instances are designed.


Barry says:

Quote

Upright Biped does not assume the consequent.  Here is his logic.

1.  Intelligent agents are the only observed cause of semiotic systems.

2.  DNA is an example of a semiotic system.

3.  The best explanation for the existence of DNA is that an intelligent agent caused it.



Dear Barry: That is precisely the question in dispute. You don't get to define yourself the winner.

Paley made the argument that really complicated things have a desgner. Darwin disputed that. Remember?

It's still the thing you have to prove rather than assert.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
k.e..



Posts: 2896
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2012,22:09   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 18 2012,03:34)
I guess the game's up. Evolution has finally been refuted by cold, hard logic.

   
Quote
MP:

I need to say one last thing.

The blatant disrespect and disregard for duties of care to the truth and fairness that are evident above point straight to the amorality of evolutionary materialism and its proneness to ruthless nihilistic factionalism that Plato Warned against 2350 years ago.

Think about that before you play strawman tactics games again.

KF

Ooops ......KF forgot to put a new light bulb in his projector.

Is unselfawareness inversly proportional to the protagonist's distance from an active volcano? and or the the cost of rum?

Quote

The blatant disrespect and disregard for duties of care to the truth and fairness that are evident above point straight to the amorality of evolutionary creationist materialism and its proneness to ruthless nihilistic theocratic factionalism  that Plato Jesus Christ Warned against 2012 years ago.

Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's




In future Gordo think about that before you play strawman tactics games again.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4241
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2012,09:47   

BarryA's penchant for wild hyperbole gets the better of him:
   
Quote
On his side Upright Biped has common everyday experience demonstrated billions of times each day – intelligent agents routinely create abstract digital codes.

Most people on the planet must be creating codes nearly every day to get billions of abstract codes a day.

Any of you create an abstract digital code today? This week? This year? Your mom or dad? Your kids? Uncle Thaddeus?

Edited by Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 18 2012,12:02

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2012,18:36   

Joe:
Quote
The point of that is if someone were to take at look at the genomes only one should be able to see the gentic defect in the organism that had 1000s of offspring and a clean genome in the other, and that person would say the second organism was the fittest.


gotta check the thread.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3560
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2012,19:10   

I suspect alcohol involvement.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3305
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2012,20:58   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 18 2012,18:36)
Joe:
Quote
The point of that is if someone were to take at look at the genomes only one should be able to see the gentic defect in the organism that had 1000s of offspring and a clean genome in the other, and that person would say the second organism was the fittest.


gotta check the thread.

Unless, of course, if the broken gene provides a survival advantage instead... of which I've already pointed out no less than three examples to Joe.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3560
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2012,02:50   

Upright Biped promises to respond:
Quote
So, I make this suggestion. Instead of you cobbling together some idea of the transfer of recorded information without the use of a material representation, an attempt destined to fail, why not accept my offer instead? Spend that time fashioning your best three or four questions. All that is asked of you is that you exercise the discipline to target the actual argument as it is given, its conclusion, and the material evidence that supports it.

If you choose otherwise, then by all means, let’s hear your example. You can expect a concise and immediate rebuttal to the necessary equivocation which you force yourself into, and you’ll be able to enjoy whatever honor is afforded to you for (unnecessarily) losing another argument and not admitting it.

And just so we are clear, that is not a display of arrogance or undue certainty, that is the culmination of Crick, Peirce, Nirenberg, Hoagland, Polanyi, von Neumann, Pattee, the principles at work, and the material evidence. If I am wrong about that, then you should be able to point it out.



Then pretty much abandoned the thread. He has not responded to a single post by mphillips. For example:
Quote
My question is this.

Please support your claim that “the”, i.e the extant symbol system, existed in it’s current form at the origin of life.



Crickets.

And this:
Quote
I’d like to know which. So what about your argument supports ID? As at the moment all I can see is this:
Quote


Darwinian evolution requires the symbol system in DNA to already exist in order to exist itself. To say that Darwinian evolution could have caused the symbol system, is to say that Darwinian evolution can suddenly cause things to happen even before it exist.


[Therefore Intelligent Design ]

So, please provide support for your claim that Darwininan evolution caused the symbol system that Darwinian evolution itself uses or that “Darwinists” are making that claim.



Crickets.

So I suppose Upright's argument boils down to this.

Quote
Darwinian evolution requires the symbol system in DNA to already exist in order to exist itself.


At one point at TSZ I characterized UPB's argument as a chicken and egg argument. Apparently I was right.

This is, of course a problem to be solved by chemistry, and UPB steadfastly refuses to discuss the chemistry.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....s-ayala

The fun starts at comment #81

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3560
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2012,02:55   

Quote
Quote
And as far as I can tell, in all your efforts, you have not examined any alternative processes that might work.

alternative processes that might work.

That is because there are none to observe, yet the argument makes available the possibility that one might be posited. That is a simple acknowledgement of reality; appropriate for both proponents and opponents alike.



Quote
Quote
Stating that there ARE or CAN BE no such processes is not a material observation, it’s simply an assertion.

Again, that is not a claim made by the argument. Even so, it does highlight the fact that the argument is falsifiable with a single demonstration otherwise. It also highlights something else. A school of thought that cannot produce a counter-example becomes non-falsifiable because their assumptions are never subjected to a test of reality.



So it's chicken and egg plus god of the gaps.

After thousands of posts over severa months, that's what it boils down to.

Edited by midwifetoad on Aug. 19 2012,03:10

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
iconofid



Posts: 32
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2012,07:19   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 19 2012,02:55)
 
Quote
 
Quote
And as far as I can tell, in all your efforts, you have not examined any alternative processes that might work.

alternative processes that might work.

That is because there are none to observe, yet the argument makes available the possibility that one might be posited. That is a simple acknowledgement of reality; appropriate for both proponents and opponents alike.



 
Quote
   
Quote
Stating that there ARE or CAN BE no such processes is not a material observation, it’s simply an assertion.

Again, that is not a claim made by the argument. Even so, it does highlight the fact that the argument is falsifiable with a single demonstration otherwise. It also highlights something else. A school of thought that cannot produce a counter-example becomes non-falsifiable because their assumptions are never subjected to a test of reality.



So it's chicken and egg plus god of the gaps.

After thousands of posts over severa months, that's what it boils down to.

On TSZ, UB counted self-replicating molecules out from his definition of a semiotic system (on the basis that they represent themselves, rather than something else). I pointed out that, as they can replicate with variation, that means that Darwinian evolution can take place without a "semiotic system" (by his definition) in place.

He didn't comment on that point, but it refutes his claim that Darwinian evolution requires a "semiotic system".

If someone who's allowed to comment on U.D. would like to ask him about self-replicating molecules, and point out that they can evolve and are subject to natural selection, it might be interesting.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4241
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2012,07:37   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 19 2012,03:55)
       
Quote
 
Quote
Stating that there ARE or CAN BE no such processes is not a material observation, it’s simply an assertion.

Again, that is not a claim made by the argument...

So it's chicken and egg plus god of the gaps.

UB is a victim of his own maneuvering, and can't remember what he has and has not asserted.

Earlier this year he concluded a post to Lizzie with the following:
   
Quote
You withdrew because the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process, and you know it.

Which is to claim that there CAN BE no such processes.

Edited by Reciprocating Bill on Aug. 19 2012,08:44

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
k.e..



Posts: 2896
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2012,08:04   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 19 2012,15:37)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 19 2012,03:55)
         
Quote
   
Quote
Stating that there ARE or CAN BE no such processes is not a material observation, it’s simply an assertion.

Again, that is not a claim made by the argument...

So it's chicken and egg plus god of the gaps.

UB is a victim of his own maneuvering, and can't remember what he has and has not asserted.

Earlier this year he concluded a post to Lizzie with the following:
     
Quote
You withdrew because the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process, and you know it.

Which is to claim that there CAN BE no such processes.

More like UB is a victim of represenation and it's object I'd like to see him wrestle a logo.

He must feel safe in using a postmodernist word that none of his cohorts grok.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3560
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2012,09:27   

Quote
You withdrew because the observed physical entailments of information transfer is beyond even a conceptual unguided process, and you know it.


Perhaps he will offer to debate Szostak on this. Or any of a number of people working on OOL.

But in a world where Tiktaalik can be dismissed as not a transitional, just asserting the impossibility of chemical evolution counts as evidence.

But it's obvious that UPB's "logic" has been shreded, and the only element of his argument left is incredulity.

edit for typo

Edited by midwifetoad on Aug. 19 2012,09:30

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3560
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2012,10:04   

Quote
Let’s ask one basic question: do you understand what inference to best, empirically grounded explanation in light of tested reliable signs is about?

If you don’t know what it is, and do not care enough for fairness to those with whom you differ, to get such things straight, that is bad enough. (I invite you to again look here, taking particular note of the deer track photo, and taking time to think about what you see there.)

I need not elaborate on what you would be doing if you know better but insist on distorting those who hold views you object to.

Until that is resolved, it is pointless trying to discus merits.

But, you need to know that you are setting yourself up to be a poster child of how some objectors to design theory caricature what they object to.

I ask you to correct yourself, before I have to take stronger measures in correction.

KF



Warming up Mr Leathers.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10131
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2012,15:49   

Gordon E mullings:

Bydand, indeed.

Onlookers! Does GEM take his lineage from his first name?
http://www.houseofgordon.net/mottoes....es.html

--------------
"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

  
REC



Posts: 571
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2012,21:55   

Oshit-

Sals gone and started a tard fight royale:

Link

Responses are predictably hilarious. I feel bad for Sal. It has to hurt to have a shred of knowledge, and realize most of your side are liars with knowledge, or the faithful without. If he pulls back the curtain any more.....

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3560
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2012,22:24   

Barry jumps in to push the thread down.

I do hope Barry gets the chance one day to defend ID in court.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 886
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 19 2012,22:29   

Quote (REC @ Aug. 20 2012,14:55)
Responses are predictably hilarious.

chis haynes' typo gave me a chuckle:
   
Quote
So let’s use honest language.
We’re Creationists.
And we’re wining.

(my bolding)
Hey chris - you left out an h.
UD link.

--------------
“To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.” - Isaac Asimov

"Grow up, assface" - Joe G., grown up ID spokesperson, Sandwalk, April 2014

  
k.e..



Posts: 2896
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2012,07:24   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 20 2012,06:24)
Barry jumps in to push the thread down.

I do hope Barry gets the chance one day to defend ID in court.

Barry prays he doesn't have to.

Tending the flock an' all that

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3560
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2012,07:38   

I envision Barry as someone who daydreams of redoing the Dover trial with him in the lead. This time they'll get it right.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
BillB



Posts: 358
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2012,09:40   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 20 2012,13:38)
I envision Barry as someone who daydreams of redoing the Dover trial with him in the lead. This time they'll get it right.

I think Barry envisions himself as the judge and the jury, and maybe the executioner.

  
sparc



Posts: 1698
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2012,10:39   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 19 2012,10:04)
Quote
Let’s ask one basic question: do you understand what inference to best, empirically grounded explanation in light of tested reliable signs is about?

If you don’t know what it is, and do not care enough for fairness to those with whom you differ, to get such things straight, that is bad enough. (I invite you to again look here, taking particular note of the deer track photo, and taking time to think about what you see there.)

I need not elaborate on what you would be doing if you know better but insist on distorting those who hold views you object to.

Until that is resolved, it is pointless trying to discus merits.

But, you need to know that you are setting yourself up to be a poster child of how some objectors to design theory caricature what they object to.

I ask you to correct yourself, before I have to take stronger measures in correction.

KF



Warming up Mr Leathers.

I guess Gordon E. Mullings has a complete series (capacity focus) on teaching or what he thinks teaching should be like:
Quote
Some people are just not ready to learn a given topic, others need a lot of help -- and with that help can make a good "go" of it --  and some "breeze through" easily.

Why is that?
He is just not ready, any help failed and writing comments with 200,000+ words surely can't be qualifed  as "breezing through".
I just wonder who is reading all that?

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
sparc



Posts: 1698
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2012,11:41   

Quote
Newly discovered spider represents new family, not just genus or species
[...]
It’s significant that so large a spider could remain unknown to science till just this year.
For DeNews this is clearly pointing to recent design instead.

link

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2012,13:09   

Quote (BillB @ Aug. 20 2012,09:40)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 20 2012,13:38)
I envision Barry as someone who daydreams of redoing the Dover trial with him in the lead. This time they'll get it right.

I think Barry envisions himself as the judge and the jury, and maybe the executioner.



--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1482
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2012,14:10   

Quote (REC @ Aug. 19 2012,21:55)
Oshit-

Sals gone and started a tard fight royale:

Link

Responses are predictably hilarious. I feel bad for Sal. It has to hurt to have a shred of knowledge, and realize most of your side are liars with knowledge, or the faithful without. If he pulls back the curtain any more.....

Wow, Slimy Sal sure kicked the hornets' nest with that one!  You've even got some Fundies coming out of lurk mode and signing up at UD just to snipe at him and post their Creation defense!

Way to go Sal!

--------------
JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

  
Patrick



Posts: 549
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2012,14:56   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Aug. 20 2012,15:10)
Quote (REC @ Aug. 19 2012,21:55)
Oshit-

Sals gone and started a tard fight royale:

Link

Responses are predictably hilarious. I feel bad for Sal. It has to hurt to have a shred of knowledge, and realize most of your side are liars with knowledge, or the faithful without. If he pulls back the curtain any more.....

Wow, Slimy Sal sure kicked the hornets' nest with that one!  You've even got some Fundies coming out of lurk mode and signing up at UD just to snipe at him and post their Creation defense!

Way to go Sal!

He's also participating over at Lizzie's blog where he disagrees publicly with Granville Sewell and seems to be making a good faith effort to learn some thermodynamics.

It might be time to start dusting off a spot on the Group W bench here for him.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1956
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2012,15:05   

Quote (REC @ Aug. 19 2012,19:55)
Oshit-

Sals gone and started a tard fight royale:

Link

Responses are predictably hilarious. I feel bad for Sal. It has to hurt to have a shred of knowledge, and realize most of your side are liars with knowledge, or the faithful without. If he pulls back the curtain any more.....

You made me look!

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3560
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2012,15:45   

Having bailed out of the thread where he promised answers, Upright opines on a new thread:

 
Quote
Upright BiPed August 20, 2012 at 2:19 pm

A Gene,

   …the only evidence put forward “for” ID is that evolution doesn’t explain something: there is no positive evidence for ID in the natural world.

Demonstrating what evolution cannot do is not the test standard created by IDist, that standard was set by Charles Darwin himself:

VI. Difficulties of the Theory

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”.

- – - – - – - –

Now, what Darwin did was to propose the impossible as a test of his theory (one cannot prove that something didn’t happen), so such a test is not viable for the modern materialist ideologue who will never accept any amount of contrary evidence (effectively isolating the theory of disconfirmation). Such a test would have only been meaningful for the rational colleagues Darwin was speaking to in his day.

In the meantime, IDist have shown a biosystem that could not have developed in incremental steps, and in the process have fulfilled one of their predictions.


Now why didn't he just say that at TSZ, where it could have been discussed? Or on the the mphillips thread?

edit to add link

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-430623

Edited by midwifetoad on Aug. 20 2012,15:47

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
  10669 replies since Aug. 31 2011,21:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (356) < ... 192 193 194 195 196 [197] 198 199 200 201 202 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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