Joined: Feb. 2009
|Quote (Joe G @ April 06 2010,13:15)|
Yes, Frank I have supported ID:
|Quote (FrankH @ April 03 2010,15:33)|
Have you ever posted "positive evidence for ID" Joe?
|Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,14:33)|
I am ready-
|Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,08:52)|
|So, how bout that challenge Joe?|
Any time you want to start posting positive evidence for your position I will read it and respond.
I would like to see it.
As for "positive evidence for evolution", I give you this:
Yes Joe, this is Rocket Science and yes, it takes study to grasp it. There are no quick or easy solutions.
Also your support for evolution is a joke.
There isn't anything about blind, undirected processes.
Ya see ID is NOT anti-evolution.
Just anti- the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over evolutionary processes.
Well Joe, I see no reason why you can't reproduce some of that work here. The only thing is on your blog, you control the comment. Here you can't.
Also, I didn't see anything for ID, not even the so called "peer-review" articles. There is nothing about ID in any of the links.
Also, ID makes not 1 but 2 and more likely 3 unverified claims for ID:
1: That there is a directed design.
2: The the directed design is caused by some intelligence.
3: That this intelligence is singular (and most who follow ID believe, no evidence at all, that this designer is their god or goddess).
Now, instead of just saying that what I brought to the table is a joke, please be so kind as to point out the flaw in the studies. Excuse me for not just taking your word that it's a "joke" when you haven't shown where the errors are.
Evolution is not "blind chance". There are feedback effects that "direct" evolution. To say this "direction" has a goal is a sign of "intelligence" would be akin to saying that water going downhill is "directed by the intelligence of the hill" would not be correct. In the same way ID fails at doing anything.
To go further, ID holds that some things are designed and others are not. Yet there is no evidence for this. Has anyone ever shown that EF and CSI have been demonstrated to determine design? No? But wait, you say they have? Well, I've never seen it. Perhaps you could give us an example.
Again, if you say it can without providing any evidence or show us how it is done, I will mark that EF and CSI don't work, despite any claims that it does by you. Obviously if you can't do it and you support that postulate then like all other "thought experiments" such as "lower life forms (flies, worms, ants, etc) come about through rotting flesh" it would be wrong.
As for ID being anti-anything, it is anti-science.
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!