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: Mar. 02 2010,08:42    Edit- how can I edit my post? -------------- "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

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,08:44    joe is just trolling for man-meat again.  joe you and chunk should get a room and type really hateful kinky homoerotic stuff at each other, you are doing about the same thing for your cause here. the best thing about your dribbling upthread to me is you say your damnself that ID is the null.  the default position and the burden of proof is on anyone saying otherwise to show differently.  then you deny that.   Quote ...ID is scientific. It is based on observations and experiences. It can be objectively tested. Now what? You still don't have any way to test your claims. All you have is the refusal to allow the design inference at all costs. So tell me assface- how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents? then Quote Too bad for you that if "specification" is not observed the design in not inferred. IOW one can eliminate chance and necessity but if there isn't any specification then design is not the default. hmmm "specification" huh. what's that? oh, ask Rich?  OK.  Rich, what does Joe say "specification" is? -------------- 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

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,08:49    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 02 2010,08:44) joe is just trolling for man-meat again.  joe you and chunk should get a room and type really hateful kinky homoerotic stuff at each other, you are doing about the same thing for your cause here. the best thing about your dribbling upthread to me is you say your damnself that ID is the null.  the default position and the burden of proof is on anyone saying otherwise to show differently.  then you deny that.   Quote ...ID is scientific. It is based on observations and experiences. It can be objectively tested. Now what? You still don't have any way to test your claims. All you have is the refusal to allow the design inference at all costs. So tell me assface- how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents? then Quote Too bad for you that if "specification" is not observed the design in not inferred. IOW one can eliminate chance and necessity but if there isn't any specification then design is not the default. hmmm "specification" huh. what's that? oh, ask Rich?  OK.  Rich, what does Joe say "specification" is? Another dick-head chimes in- And as predicted nothing of substance and nothing to support its position. Go figure... -------------- "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: Mar. 02 2010,08:51    Specification- the difference maker Now you can beat that to death but that doesn't help yopu provide positive evidence for your position. -------------- "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: Mar. 02 2010,09:24    Quote oh, ask Rich?  OK.  Rich, what does Joe say "specification" is? CAEK IS NOT SPECIFIED BUT CHOCKOLATE CAEK IS SPECIFIED. SPECIFIED MEANS THE TYPE OF A THING OF A KIND, IN SCIENCE LANGUAGES. -------------- "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

Richard Simons Posts: 425 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,09:37    Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,07:57) So just how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum- or any biological structure- "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents? Or are you clowns going to finally admit that your position is non-testable? The prediction from the theory of evolution: molecules similar to, or the same as, those found in bacterial flagella should be present in the cell walls of non-flagellated bacteria. The test: bacterial cell walls were investigated and found to contain similar molecules. The result: the prediction was upheld. The prediction from ID: whatever is found will be attributed to design. The test: scientific papers were scoured to see what had been found. The result: I'm not sure that anyone has publicly claimed that the precursors to the bacterial flagellum were designed, but they will get to it eventually. (This reminds me: I understand there are about 40 different variants on bacterial flagella. Was just one designed, if so, which, or were they all designed individually?) See the difference? ID supporters have never made any testable prediction and put it to the test. BTW: You ask about edit privileges. Automatically allowing people to edit their own comments was withdrawn after a creationist editted an earlier comment to completely change the meaning of what had been written (and no, it was not a simple typo). You have to convince the administration that you will not abuse the right to edit, for example by admitting to mistakes when appropriate. (Edit to correct typo) -------------- All sweeping statements are wrong.

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,09:43    http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/claims-evolution-flagella Quote Here is a summary of the table published in Pallen & Matzke (2006) (the table is freely available online here): Total number of proteins listed: 42     (this table excludes the chemotaxis proteins; there are ~10 chemotaxis proteins in standard E. coli, but the number can range from 0 to 10+ in various bacteria) Total number thought to be indispensable in modern flagella: 23 (55%) Total number "unique" (no known homologs): 15 (36%) Total number of indispensable proteins that are also "unique": 2 (5%) EDIT to add: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/09/flagellum-evolu.html -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Richard Simons Posts: 425 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,09:43    Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 02 2010,09:24) Quote oh, ask Rich?  OK.  Rich, what does Joe say "specification" is? CAEK IS NOT SPECIFIED BUT CHOCKOLATE CAEK IS SPECIFIED. SPECIFIED MEANS THE TYPE OF A THING OF A KIND, IN SCIENCE LANGUAGES. Specification: Isn't that the definition of the aardvark from the English language dictionary of your Joe's choice? -------------- All sweeping statements are wrong.

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,10:01    Quote (Richard Simons @ Mar. 02 2010,07:43) Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 02 2010,09:24)   Quote oh, ask Rich?  OK.  Rich, what does Joe say "specification" is? CAEK IS NOT SPECIFIED BUT CHOCKOLATE CAEK IS SPECIFIED. SPECIFIED MEANS THE TYPE OF A THING OF A KIND, IN SCIENCE LANGUAGES. Specification: Isn't that the definition of the aardvark from the English language dictionary of your Joe's choice? I like this one, from the blog post he linked: Quote The difference between a rock and artifact is specification. So, so true.  Well, unless the artifact isn't made from a rock.  Like a wooden bow. OK, new variant of this defintion: The difference between a stick and a bow is specification. But then there's the bowstring, which could be made from tendon, for instance.  So: The difference between a tendon and a bowstring is specification. But hold on: isn't the tendon specified already?  'Cause it's from an organism, and they're "obviously" designed. The difference between a specified tendon and a bowstring is some extra specification? OK, fuck it: this is a wretched way of defining specification. -------------- I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,11:30    sigh... he's not even trying to defend his position.  Just trying to make us play his game. Hey Joe, When did the designer last act? What was the designer's last act? and I'll type this one slowly for you... IS THERE ANY OBJECTIVE MEASURE FOR SPECIFICITY (or whatever you guys call it now)? bonus question: What unit is specificity measured in (I have a prediction regarding this answer, should you ever choose to jot yout thoughts down)? -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,11:32    Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,08:32) Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 02 2010,08:09) Joe, are you ever going to put forth any positive evidence for ID, other than "I can sees it"? When are you going to fill in the blanks on the ID science report I typed up for you?  You know where you have actual values for specified complexity and you compare those values to things that are of known design and known randomness. Until you do that, your IDs are just a waste of electrons. I'd also like to point out that Wells, Dembski, and Behe ARE ID.  They created it (well, after blatantly stealing it from Paley).  You haven't written several books on ID.  Until you do, then they get to decide what ID is, not you. And they have all decided that ID is a religious program with no scientific merit.  So, are you going to stand up to Dembski and tell him that he's wrong and that ID isn't religious? Ogre, Are you going to put fortth any positive evidence that supports your position? BTW Dr Behe accepts Common Descent- meaning ID does not argue against Common Descent. And all three say ID is scientific. It is based on observations and experiences. It can be objectively tested. Now what? You still don't have any way to test your claims. All you have is the refusal to allow the design inference at all costs. So tell me assface- how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents? <a href=http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2008/02/supporting-intelligent-design.html><b>Supporting ID</b></a> and <a href=http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010/02/more-evidence-for-intelligent-design.html><b>more evidence for ID</b></a> You do realize that you can falsify ID just by substantiating the claims of your position? I'll type this slowly: are YOU ever going to put forth some evidence for ID, on this here forum?  (Hint CTRL-C and CTRL-V are not evidence.) Please use your words (minus the cursing, peer-reviewed journals frown on calling the editor 'dickhead'). -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,11:40    Quote But hold on: isn't the tendon specified already???'Cause it's from an organism, and they're "obviously" designed. So did the stick, in an earlier paragraph. Henry

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,13:22    Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 02 2010,09:40) Quote But hold on: isn't the tendon specified already???'Cause it's from an organism, and they're "obviously" designed. So did the stick, in an earlier paragraph. Henry See: it's even worse than I'd imagined!  Also, I probably should have noticed that....jerk.   -------------- I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,17:39    Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,09:42) Edit- how can I edit my post? You need to convince Wesley you're worthy and you won't use the facility to dishonestly edit posts people have responded too. Good luck doing that! -ETA- Because I can.

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2010,18:00    Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,06:42) Edit- how can I edit my post? Don't be a jackass. Edited to add: Never mind, just carry on as normal. You can't change. Edited by Dr.GH on Mar. 02 2010,16:01 -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2010,02:58    Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,08:42) Edit- how can I edit my post? Use a word processor, delete expletives, c&p to AtBC -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2010,06:54    Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 02 2010,11:32) Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,08:32) Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 02 2010,08:09) Joe, are you ever going to put forth any positive evidence for ID, other than "I can sees it"? When are you going to fill in the blanks on the ID science report I typed up for you?  You know where you have actual values for specified complexity and you compare those values to things that are of known design and known randomness. Until you do that, your IDs are just a waste of electrons. I'd also like to point out that Wells, Dembski, and Behe ARE ID.  They created it (well, after blatantly stealing it from Paley).  You haven't written several books on ID.  Until you do, then they get to decide what ID is, not you. And they have all decided that ID is a religious program with no scientific merit.  So, are you going to stand up to Dembski and tell him that he's wrong and that ID isn't religious? Ogre, Are you going to put fortth any positive evidence that supports your position? BTW Dr Behe accepts Common Descent- meaning ID does not argue against Common Descent. And all three say ID is scientific. It is based on observations and experiences. It can be objectively tested. Now what? You still don't have any way to test your claims. All you have is the refusal to allow the design inference at all costs. So tell me assface- how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents? <a href=http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2008/02/supporting-intelligent-design.html><b>Supporting ID</b></a> and <a href=http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010/02/more-evidence-for-intelligent-design.html><b>more evidence for ID</b></a> You do realize that you can falsify ID just by substantiating the claims of your position? I'll type this slowly: are YOU ever going to put forth some evidence for ID, on this here forum?  (Hint CTRL-C and CTRL-V are not evidence.) Please use your words (minus the cursing, peer-reviewed journals frown on calling the editor 'dickhead'). Ogre, I take it that you are too ignorant to follow the links I provided. Not my problem asshole. But anyway are YOU ever going to put forth some positive evidence to support your position? For example how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents? -------------- "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: Mar. 03 2010,06:57    Quote (Richard Simons @ Mar. 02 2010,09:37) Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,07:57) So just how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum- or any biological structure- "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents? Or are you clowns going to finally admit that your position is non-testable? The prediction from the theory of evolution: molecules similar to, or the same as, those found in bacterial flagella should be present in the cell walls of non-flagellated bacteria. The test: bacterial cell walls were investigated and found to contain similar molecules. The result: the prediction was upheld. The prediction from ID: whatever is found will be attributed to design. The test: scientific papers were scoured to see what had been found. The result: I'm not sure that anyone has publicly claimed that the precursors to the bacterial flagellum were designed, but they will get to it eventually. (This reminds me: I understand there are about 40 different variants on bacterial flagella. Was just one designed, if so, which, or were they all designed individually?) See the difference? ID supporters have never made any testable prediction and put it to the test. BTW: You ask about edit privileges. Automatically allowing people to edit their own comments was withdrawn after a creationist editted an earlier comment to completely change the meaning of what had been written (and no, it was not a simple typo). You have to convince the administration that you will not abuse the right to edit, for example by admitting to mistakes when appropriate. (Edit to correct typo) IOW you don't have anything that supports the claim of blind, undirected processes. Got it. Thanks. Or perhaps you can tell me how it was determined that teh bacterial flagellum evolved via an accumulation of genetic accidents? -------------- "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

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2010,07:52    Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 03 2010,06:57) IOW you don't have anything that supports the claim of blind, undirected processes. Got it. Thanks. Or perhaps you can tell me how it was determined that teh bacterial flagellum evolved via an accumulation of genetic accidents? Hi Joe, What do you have that supports the claim that a designer exists? Or perhaps you could tell me how you know that a designer designed the bacterial flagellum, as opposed to some unknown but natural process? -------------- 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

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2010,08:44    Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 03 2010,06:54) Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 02 2010,11:32) I'll type this slowly: are YOU ever going to put forth some evidence for ID, on this here forum?  (Hint CTRL-C and CTRL-V are not evidence.) Please use your words (minus the cursing, peer-reviewed journals frown on calling the editor 'dickhead'). Ogre, I take it that you are too ignorant to follow the links I provided. Not my problem asshole. But anyway are YOU ever going to put forth some positive evidence to support your position? For example how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents? Prediction confirmed. Thanks Joe.  You know, you really aren't helping your case at all.  This viscious attitude is just making you look like a complete loser.  All I'm asking is that you spend a few minutes to type up the answers to my questions... which directly involve intelligent design. Your refusal to do so (instead launching a diatribe against me) just indicates that you don't have any support and you know it.  Of course, we've known it for decades, just having confirmation from you is icing. Now... 1) Do you have any evidence to support any proposition put forth by ID? 2) What is a testable, falsifiable hypothesis for ID? (remember, your previous attempt wasn't testable or falsifiable) 3) When did the designed last act? 4) What value and unit is the specified complexity for an organism measured in?  Why? Can you answer these questions or not?  I don't want a youtube link.  I don't want a link to what someone else writes.  I want to know what you think. You've obviously got some serious emotional attachment to the idea of ID.  I want to know why.  What about ID has got you so fired up that you can't even generate a response to some simple (even basic) questions about your 'theory'? Dude, these are honest questions.  I'm sorry if you can't see that.  But don't you see that your attitude is really hurting you cause? Or is it just more fun to curse at people than actually hold an adult conversation? -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2010,10:59    Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,08:42) Edit- how can I edit my post? Simple - don't be a jerk.  Which is quite clearly impossible for you, so: Click -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2010,14:12    Link to previous post (copied below) Joe, The following (link above) is commentary on a UD poster. Quote I see Jerry's been attending the David Berlinski school of pulling large numbers out your ass:    [Quote ] This also does not make sense. Are there not cleanly delineated barriers between many species. I can name a million or two that have clear delineated barriers. For example, take a fish and a fruit fly. I can name a million or two where they are not. For example, beetles. I have no idea why you brought in the concept of a designer. ID does not rule out that a large percentage of species arrived by naturalistic means. It just is not 100% [/quote] The original post contains a link to the original UD post/comment. So the questions are: 1) Do you agree with Jerry's claims? 2) If not, why not and what does Jerry have wrong? 3) If so, what percentage of organisms do have natural evolutionary histories and how did you arrive at that figure? 4) Are organisms that do not have natural evolutionary histories direct results of the designer? 5) Can you (or Jerry) name one organism that does not have a natural evolutionary history?  (not a group, not a genus, but a species) -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2010,20:32    Quote 2) What is a testable, falsifiable hypothesis for ID? (remember, your previous attempt wasn't testable or falsifiable) Even if somebody produced one, what fraction of ID advocates would agree that the hypothesis follows as a necessary logical consequence of the concept that life was in some way deliberately engineered? Henry

Cubist Posts: 558 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2010,02:07    Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 03 2010,06:57) (P)erhaps you can tell me how it was determined that teh bacterial flagellum evolved via an accumulation of genetic accidents? For the purpose of discussing ID, I am perfectly willing to stipulate that the theory of evolution is dead, dead, dead... that evolution has been taken out behind the barn and shot thru the head with empirical data... that evolution is an ex-theory. With this stipulation, the answer to your question is: "Actually, it never was determined that the bacterial flagellum evolved via an accumulation of genetic accidents; some folks thought so for a while, but they were wrong." Now that your question has been answered, can you please explain how one would go about determining that the bacterial flagellum was (is?) the product of design?

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2010,10:26    Quote (Cubist @ Mar. 04 2010,00:07) Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 03 2010,06:57) (P)erhaps you can tell me how it was determined that teh bacterial flagellum evolved via an accumulation of genetic accidents? For the purpose of discussing ID, I am perfectly willing to stipulate that the theory of evolution is dead, dead, dead... that evolution has been taken out behind the barn and shot thru the head with empirical data... that evolution is an ex-theory. With this stipulation, the answer to your question is: "Actually, it never was determined that the bacterial flagellum evolved via an accumulation of genetic accidents; some folks thought so for a while, but they were wrong." Now that your question has been answered, can you please explain how one would go about determining that the bacterial flagellum was (is?) the product of design? I was wondering when someone would get around to this. GI Joe? Okay, we're in a parallel universe. There is no theory of evolution. Your go. -------------- "[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

dogdidit Posts: 315 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2010,10:35    Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 04 2010,10:26)   Quote (Cubist @ Mar. 04 2010,00:07)     Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 03 2010,06:57) (P)erhaps you can tell me how it was determined that teh bacterial flagellum evolved via an accumulation of genetic accidents? For the purpose of discussing ID, I am perfectly willing to stipulate that the theory of evolution is dead, dead, dead... that evolution has been taken out behind the barn and shot thru the head with empirical data... that evolution is an ex-theory. With this stipulation, the answer to your question is: "Actually, it never was determined that the bacterial flagellum evolved via an accumulation of genetic accidents; some folks thought so for a while, but they were wrong." Now that your question has been answered, can you please explain how one would go about determining that the bacterial flagellum was (is?) the product of design? I was wondering when someone would get around to this. GI Joe? Okay, we're in a parallel universe. There is no theory of evolution. Your go. IDiot Joe isn't coming back anytime soon. olegt killeded him here. olegt counted much coup that day. There must be some reward for that kind of complete rhetorical tardemolition (other than a handsomely-framed LOLCAT from carlsonjok...which I admit can brighten any room in the house). -------------- "Humans carry plants and animals all over the globe, thus introducing them to places they could never have reached on their own. That certainly increases biodiversity." - D'OL

slpage Posts: 349 Joined: June 2004 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2010,11:30    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:35) Quote BTW Darwin used "Creator" (capital "C") in the sixth edition- a released version- of "On the Origins of Species". But not in editions 1-5? Quote IOW according to Darwwin the theory of evolution is a creationist theory. Right. Is it your opinion that non-IDC claims (i.e., evolutionary claims) can make it into textbooks without having to have gone through the 'normal' process of having had been vetted through the peer-review process and been considered established science first?

slpage Posts: 349 Joined: June 2004 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2010,11:33    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,10:37) Read the commentary here You refer to a commentary by a computer technician creationist with a documented history of distorting facts? Whatever.

slpage Posts: 349 Joined: June 2004 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2010,11:43    Quote I wonder if these clowns think that all the success people have had using the EF or some reasonable fasimile(sic) thereof, is just an illusion? What success is that? What Design has been detected in biological entities using the EF that does not rely on using analogies as the foundational basis?

Richard Simons Posts: 425 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2010,12:53    Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 03 2010,06:57)   Quote (Richard Simons @ Mar. 02 2010,09:37)   Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,07:57) So just how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum- or any biological structure- "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents? Or are you clowns going to finally admit that your position is non-testable? The prediction from the theory of evolution: molecules similar to, or the same as, those found in bacterial flagella should be present in the cell walls of non-flagellated bacteria. The test: bacterial cell walls were investigated and found to contain similar molecules. The result: the prediction was upheld. The prediction from ID: whatever is found will be attributed to design. The test: scientific papers were scoured to see what had been found. The result: I'm not sure that anyone has publicly claimed that the precursors to the bacterial flagellum were designed, but they will get to it eventually. (This reminds me: I understand there are about 40 different variants on bacterial flagella. Was just one designed, if so, which, or were they all designed individually?) See the difference? ID supporters have never made any testable prediction and put it to the test. BTW: You ask about edit privileges. Automatically allowing people to edit their own comments was withdrawn after a creationist editted an earlier comment to completely change the meaning of what had been written (and no, it was not a simple typo). You have to convince the administration that you will not abuse the right to edit, for example by admitting to mistakes when appropriate. (Edit to correct typo) IOW you don't have anything that supports the claim of blind, undirected processes. Got it. Thanks. Or perhaps you can tell me how it was determined that teh bacterial flagellum evolved via an accumulation of genetic accidents? Joe: Scientists do not go looking for evidence to support hypotheses. They look for evidence to refute hypotheses. They talk about a hypothesis having been supported if they fail to find evidence to refute it. The problem (or rather, one of the problems) with ID is that there is no possible evidence that would refute it ('possible' in the sense that if the evidence existed, it could be found). -------------- All sweeping statements are wrong.

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