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 >

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:18    Joe/Tough Guy Re the retarded question in your OP - two words Wedge Strategy The seminal planning document of the ID movement acknowledges that ID seeks to replace evolutionary theory. If someone was seeking to replace you at your refrigerator repair shop, would you consider them to be "anti-Joe"? -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:21    Quote (Joe G @ 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? That's OK Joe, we both know you can't do any CSI calculations. It's just fun to watch you quiver and slobber trying to avoid the questions.     -------------- "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 2010,11:22    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 24 2010,11:11) Hey Joe, What would you teach in an inteligent design course? Hey why don't you focus on the OP? Is that simple concept too much for you to understand? -------------- "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 2010,11:25    Quote (Tom Ames @ 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. Ames go fuck yourself. Your position can't explaijn alternative gene splicing and you know 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

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:25    Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 24 2010,09:13) 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. Actually, Joe just did a cut'n'paste from the linked creationist site/ tard mine. Obviously, he didn't read any real articles. Edited by Dr.GH on Feb. 24 2010,09:27 -------------- "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 2010,11:26    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 24 2010,11:18) Joe/Tough Guy Re the retarded question in your OP - two words Wedge Strategy The seminal planning document of the ID movement acknowledges that ID seeks to replace evolutionary theory. If someone was seeking to replace you at your refrigerator repair shop, would you consider them to be "anti-Joe"? More stupidity. The theory ID wants replaced is the one connected to the blind watchmaker. Duh... -------------- "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 2010,11:27    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 24 2010,11:21) Quote (Joe G @ 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? That's OK Joe, we both know you can't do any CSI calculations. It's just fun to watch you quiver and slobber trying to avoid the questions. :D  :D  :D And yet I have provided such a calculation you moronic momma's boy. So it seems that Afterbirth thinks that being an asshole helps it makes its case... -------------- "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 2010,11:28    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 24 2010,11:21) Quote (Joe G @ 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? That's OK Joe, we both know you can't do any CSI calculations. It's just fun to watch you quiver and slobber trying to avoid the questions. :D  :D  :D And yet I have provided such a calculation you moronic momma's boy. So it seems that Afterbirth thinks that being an asshole helps it makes its case... -------------- "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 2010,11:29    Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 24 2010,11:25) Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 24 2010,09:13) 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. Actually, Joe just did a cut'n'paste from the linked creationist site/ tard mine. Obviously, he didn't read any real articles. Gary, Please, by all means, tell us how your position explains alternative gene splicing. And please provide the peer-reviewed paper(s) that support your explanation. -------------- "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 2010,11:30    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:27)     Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 24 2010,11:21)     Quote (Joe G @ 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? That's OK Joe, we both know you can't do any CSI calculations. It's just fun to watch you quiver and slobber trying to avoid the questions.     And yet I have provided such a calculation you moronic momma's boy. So it seems that Afterbirth thinks that being an asshole helps it makes its case... Bullshit Joe. What is the calculated CSI value of a baseball then? Provide the answer here, and show your work. C'mon tough guy, show us what ya got. -------------- "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.

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:30    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:26) Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 24 2010,11:18) Joe/Tough Guy Re the retarded question in your OP - two words Wedge Strategy The seminal planning document of the ID movement acknowledges that ID seeks to replace evolutionary theory. If someone was seeking to replace you at your refrigerator repair shop, would you consider them to be "anti-Joe"? More stupidity. Yep. You just keep posting it. Why don't you answer the question? -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:32    Why can't you assholes stay focused on the discussion? Is that too much to ask? Obviously it is if one is asking a bunch of retarded monkeys... -------------- "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 2010,11:34    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:32) Why can't you assholes stay focused on the discussion? Is that too much to ask? Obviously it is if one is asking a bunch of retarded monkeys... Your stupidity is the discussion Joe. But I guess you're too stupid to notice.   -------------- "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.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:35    "Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God.” - William Dembski quoted, Science Test, Church & State Magazine, July / August 2000. “The world is a mirror representing the divine life…Intelligent design readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.” - William A. Dembski, Touchstone Magazine, July/August 1999. "The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if there’s anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It’s important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world." William Dembski quoted, Benen, Steve, “The Discovery Institute”, Church and State Magazine, May 2002. Joe, perhaps to you, Dembski says that ID is not anti-evolution.  However, when he speaks to Christian groups, he is obviously (as quoted above) representing a specificly Christian message. Now, I have a specific question that I would appreciate an answer to. Is evolution the same as 'Darwinism'? Is evolution the same (or uses) material naturalism? (Simple, yes/no please) Since you don't seem to be answering questions, I'll lay it out for you. If either of these are true, then you are wrong.  The Wedge document (link above) specifically says (as the first goal): "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies." Since Dembski is listed several times within this document, I can only assume that he supports this document. The implication here is that you don't even understand ID. [I predict some abusive remarks, none of which address anything I've said.] -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:36    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 24 2010,11:34) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:32) Why can't you assholes stay focused on the discussion? Is that too much to ask? Obviously it is if one is asking a bunch of retarded monkeys... Your stupidity is the discussion Joe. But I guess you're too stupid to notice.   :D Well when someone presents evidence for that I will discuss it. So far you have proven to be the stupidest person here. Not only that you are a liar, momma's boy and a crybaby. So what else is new? -------------- "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

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:39    Since we're on the subject: What is a hypothesis that ID makes? What experiment could be done to test this hypothesis and what values of the resulting measurement would support or refute the hypothesis? What evidence would falsify ID? -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:40    Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 24 2010,11:35) "Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God.” - William Dembski quoted, Science Test, Church & State Magazine, July / August 2000. “The world is a mirror representing the divine life…Intelligent design readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.” - William A. Dembski, Touchstone Magazine, July/August 1999. "The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if there’s anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It’s important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world." William Dembski quoted, Benen, Steve, “The Discovery Institute”, Church and State Magazine, May 2002. Joe, perhaps to you, Dembski says that ID is not anti-evolution.  However, when he speaks to Christian groups, he is obviously (as quoted above) representing a specificly Christian message. Now, I have a specific question that I would appreciate an answer to. Is evolution the same as 'Darwinism'? Is evolution the same (or uses) material naturalism? (Simple, yes/no please) Since you don't seem to be answering questions, I'll lay it out for you. If either of these are true, then you are wrong.  The Wedge document (link above) specifically says (as the first goal): "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies." Since Dembski is listed several times within this document, I can only assume that he supports this document. The implication here is that you don't even understand ID. [I predict some abusive remarks, none of which address anything I've said.] Ogre, I take it that you have no idea what evolution is even though I provided a link. Quote Is evolution the same as 'Darwinism'? No. Quote Is evolution the same (or uses) material naturalism? Not sure how you are defining MN. Also ID seeks to replace the blind watchmaker thesis ONLY. What part of that don't you understand? -------------- "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 2010,11:40    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:36) Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 24 2010,11:34)   Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:32) Why can't you assholes stay focused on the discussion? Is that too much to ask? Obviously it is if one is asking a bunch of retarded monkeys... Your stupidity is the discussion Joe. But I guess you're too stupid to notice.   Well when someone presents evidence for that I will discuss it. So far you have proven to be the stupidest person here. Not only that you are a liar, momma's boy and a crybaby. So what else is new? You forgot to threaten to beat me up.  Or off.  I forget which one you fantasize about the most.   -------------- "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.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:40    Quote And yet I have provided such a calculation you moronic momma's boy. Oh! what was the answer? how many bits? -------------- "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 2010,11:42    Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 24 2010,11:39) Since we're on the subject: What is a hypothesis that ID makes? What experiment could be done to test this hypothesis and what values of the resulting measurement would support or refute the hypothesis? What evidence would falsify ID? Supporting ID complete with a design hypothesis. To test the design inference all one has to do is to demonstrate that the object/ event in question can arise via nature, operating freely- ie it is reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity. If nature, operating freely can account for it then the design inference is unwarranted. So there you have it. All the anti-ID mob has to do is to actually start supporting their position and ID will fade away... -------------- "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 2010,11:43    So what is the hypothsis the blind watchmaker makes? How can it be falsified? -------------- "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 2010,11:47    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:42) If nature, operating freely can account for it then the design inference is unwarranted. And how would you know that part, Joe? Do we know every natural mechanism? If not, then we can't do it. If we do, then I've got some physics questions for you. -------------- "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

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:50    On June 16th, 2006 Dembski posted on UD the following... Quote The problem is not that evolution implies God does’t exist. The problem is that if God does not exist, then evolution is the only possibility. He later added a qualifying parenthetical after the logical implications were pointed out on TalkOrigins forum. Here is the UD link to the modified statement. While I think you are wasting your time arguing with Joe G (aka ID Guy), I thought you might like to have this in your hip pocket in case someone tries it claim the Wedge is no longer applicable to Dembski's version of ID.

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:51    Joe G - Why are you posting here?  Why are you posting like a total asshole? And more importantly, why weren't you ever taught to properly communicate when you were younger?  Perhaps you could seek some professional guidence and help in getting along with your fellow hominids.  Your basic premise is wrong, your OP is demented, and I believe strongly that you are too. Even your bronze-age god figurehead counsels against the behavior you are exhibiting, and if you actually believe that crap in your bible, then you, Joe G are going to be burning in hell for an eternity.  And if you actually don't believe all that crap, then in that case, you're just a ninny and a nincompoop.  And in that case, I say again, you should seek professional help.  Joe G, you are just not right in the head.  And the proof is in your posts. -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Tom Ames Posts: 238 Joined: Dec. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:51    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,09:25) Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 24 2010,11:13) Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,08:37) 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. Ames go fuck yourself. Your position can't explaijn alternative gene splicing and you know it. Cutting and pasting the contents of a section from Nature called "Building a Cell" doesn't constitute evidence of anything. When you read and understand the papers you cite the titles of, I'll consider discussing the science with you. Until then, you're just spewing bullshit (in the technical sense of the term). And THAT, to answer your original question once more, is why ID cannot be permitted to be taught in public schools. Because the people who would teach it are barely competent to read the titles of the scientific literature, much less to understand any of it. -------------- -Tom Ames

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,11:55    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:40) Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 24 2010,11:35) "Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God.” - William Dembski quoted, Science Test, Church & State Magazine, July / August 2000. “The world is a mirror representing the divine life…Intelligent design readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.” - William A. Dembski, Touchstone Magazine, July/August 1999. "The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if there’s anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It’s important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world." William Dembski quoted, Benen, Steve, “The Discovery Institute”, Church and State Magazine, May 2002. Joe, perhaps to you, Dembski says that ID is not anti-evolution.  However, when he speaks to Christian groups, he is obviously (as quoted above) representing a specificly Christian message. Now, I have a specific question that I would appreciate an answer to. Is evolution the same as 'Darwinism'? Is evolution the same (or uses) material naturalism? (Simple, yes/no please) Since you don't seem to be answering questions, I'll lay it out for you. If either of these are true, then you are wrong.  The Wedge document (link above) specifically says (as the first goal): "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies." Since Dembski is listed several times within this document, I can only assume that he supports this document. The implication here is that you don't even understand ID. [I predict some abusive remarks, none of which address anything I've said.] Ogre, I take it that you have no idea what evolution is even though I provided a link. Quote Is evolution the same as 'Darwinism'? No. Quote Is evolution the same (or uses) material naturalism? Not sure how you are defining MN. Also ID seeks to replace the blind watchmaker thesis ONLY. What part of that don't you understand? I'm sorry, I thought you were here to defend ID, not attack evolution. I was actually hoping you understood ID so you could explain it to me.  I guess I'll just wait for Dembski. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,12:00    The problem of ID is that its proponents don't share a common view. Some accept common descent, some don't. Some believe in a young Earth, others don't. So, it could be argued that ID, in the broad sense, does not exclude some sort of evolution (prescribed evolution maybe)? It's up to IDers to formulate testable hypotheses.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,12:08    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:22) Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 24 2010,11:11) Hey Joe, What would you teach in an inteligent design course? Hey why don't you focus on the OP? Is that simple concept too much for you to understand? Joe, Excuse me but you mentioned about ID being taught in school in the OP. Why is wanting to know what you want to have taught off-topic? Look Joe not only is this in your OP, it is the header. Quote 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. So what do you want to "present" to the kids?

cogzoid Posts: 234 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,12:09    Quote (Joe G @ 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... When people ask you to back up what you say, you call them an asshole.  What exactly are we supposed to teach in schools again?  You have no experiments, no evidence, no math.  I think name-calling class is called recess. So what would a typical ID class syllabus look like?  Book reports on Dembski's books? Before you start asking to get taught in schools, why don't you guys get to work in the labs.  Fill up those journals you so easily start.  PCID, JOEI, etc.  Once you have something to teach, then you can ask politely.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2010,12:11    Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:42) Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 24 2010,11:39) Since we're on the subject: What is a hypothesis that ID makes? What experiment could be done to test this hypothesis and what values of the resulting measurement would support or refute the hypothesis? What evidence would falsify ID? Supporting ID complete with a design hypothesis. To test the design inference all one has to do is to demonstrate that the object/ event in question can arise via nature, operating freely- ie it is reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity. If nature, operating freely can account for it then the design inference is unwarranted. So there you have it. All the anti-ID mob has to do is to actually start supporting their position and ID will fade away... Still doesn't understand how science works. "To test the design inference all one has to do is to demonstrate that the object/ event in question can arise via nature, operating freely- ie it is reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity." This is not a test that has any value.  It is subjective.  You will obviously decide that everything is designed.  While others may or may not. Here's an example (heck it's all the work done for you, all you have to do is fill in some blanks and do the calculation). If the E. coli flagellum is designed, then we should see a specified complexity value of _.  If the flagellum is not designed, then the specified complexity value is less than (same as above). The measurements that we will use for determining specified complexity are 1) _ etc. (a series of structures, sequences, etc. that will be measured and values inserted into an equation (or series)) To determine the value for specified complexity, we do , and , ____ (do maths). Thus our hypothesis (the if/then statement above) is (supported/ not supported) by our calculations. See how easy it is?  This is what a proper science report should look like in the 6th grade.  If you want to do a real grown-up science report, then you should include the references to every paper and journal article that discuss your hypothesis, flagellum, and maths REGARDLESS of whether that paper supports your position or not and show why your results are more accurate than the ones against your position. Then you can send this into a real peer-reviewed journal whose many reviewers will proceed to examine your work in great detail.  If it passes them, then YOU will have been the first person ever to do ID research. Then and only then will anyone in the scientific community take ID seriously.  As far as taking you seriously, I suggest you start with a new attitude and being a little nicer. BTW: You forgot to discuss the 'falsification' part of ID. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

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