|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 3/31/2008 11:36:50 PM
|
|
|
Agahnim
Posts: 205
Joined: 2/27/2008
Status: offline
|
This is really great, Jhud: now we get into the personal attacks and anecdotes about old threads instead of actual arguments. And when I say it’s great, I’m not being sarcastic. Anyone who registers at this forum and is undecided about this topic isn’t going to be impressed by what you say you’ve posted in the past, and can’t link to anymore because it’s no longer on the forum. This is what I mean when I talk about tactics—most people can tell when a person has the evidence to support their viewpoint, and when someone is just trying to cover up the fact that they don’t.
But I should comment on your new batch of personal attacks against me, even though I don’t know enough about drj11 to say anything about it in his case: assuming that you’ve been involved in these debates for as long as you’ve been registered at this forum, I’ve been involved in them for longer than you. At the main forum where I do this, Christianforums.com, I’ve been registered since January of 2004. I’ve been involved in more debates there than at least three-quarters of the members who are active in the creation/evolution section, and am well-enough known that people periodically post threads there specifically for me. Here are a couple examples:
http://christianforums.com/t5411472 is a thread someone posted for me about the origin of birds, since almost everyone at CF regards me as the forum’s expert on that topic.
And http://christianforums.com/t5416432 was posted to let me know that P. Z. Myers was talking about my anti-creationism webcomic at Pharyngula. I assume you know what Pharyngula is.
So, who’s the noob that nobody bothers with once they get to know me? Based on what I’ve seen of your posts, the only reason anybody bothers replying to you is because otherwise it might look like you were able to refute something. But given what your posts have been like lately, I’m not even sure that’s still a risk.
_____________________________
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." --Mahatma Gandhi
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 3/31/2008 11:46:24 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1294
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
Because all natural science presupposes natural causes. Thats all we can study. Even if you could somehow give evidence of design, it would be the most useless theory in scientific history.
How is UCD useful to science. ID makes predictions, UCD does not (well, darwin did at one time, but much of what he said was wrong so now UCD is just useless).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 4/1/2008 12:07:31 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1294
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Agahnim
drj11, I don’t recommend taking the time to reply to Bettawrekonize’s posts.
...
A PRATT list is the most famous example of this tactic.
Please note that these kinds of posts will likely get you banned from here. Please read the TOS.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 4/1/2008 2:22:46 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 4/1/2008 12:13:28 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1294
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Agahnim
I know you won’t be able to show me an example of where you’ve allegedly addressed these points before, since threads that have been inactive for more than a month seem to be removed from this board.
These points have been addressed and you can likely use the search feature to find them. If you use the search feature you will likely find that it does go back before a month.
http://forums.christianity.com/m_2400961/mpage_16/key_Co-option/tm.htm#2641970
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 4/1/2008 12:43:25 AM
|
|
|
Agahnim
Posts: 205
Joined: 2/27/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Please note that these kinds of posts will likely get you banned from here. Please read the TOS.
I’ve read them, and I’ve also noticed that based on the sorts of posts I see from other people, they don’t seem to be enforced.
quote:
These points have been addressed and you can likely use the search feature to find them. If you use the search feature you will likely find that it does go back before a month.
That’s useful to know, but it raises the question of why Jhud keeps just claiming “I explained this before” rather than actually posting a link to one of his earlier explanations. Let’s take a look at the explanation you linked to, and see if we can figure out why not:
quote:
Not contradictory at all. You take away the parts (any of them) and it no longer functions as a flagellum. The flagellum ceases to function. It is irreducibly complex.
Now, the point ID proponents make about the flagellum is that it can’t have evolved because without all the parts in place, it won’t provide an advantage to the bacteria that have it, so natural selection won’t favor it. What Jhud is saying is that if you take away several parts of the flagellum, it will no longer function as a flagellum, even though it will still function as a Type III secretory system and therefore still provide an advantage. Well, the fact that just part of it would not function as a flagellum is not an obstacle for it having evolved—all that’s necessary is that the individual parts of it would provide some type of advantage, and them having any function (even a completely different function) is sufficient for that.
Jhud is right that the flagellum, as a flagellum, is irreducibly complex. But the fact that only part of an irreducibly complex structure can still be favored by natural selection, if that part serves a function of its own, is the reason why irreducible complexity isn’t an obstacle to evolution. Aristocrat explained this fairly well in the thread you linked to, so I suspect the reason Jhud has declined to link me to that thread is because his claim about this has already been refuted there.
_____________________________
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." --Mahatma Gandhi
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 4/1/2008 1:04:26 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1294
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Agahnim
I’ve read them, and I’ve also noticed that based on the sorts of posts I see from other people, they don’t seem to be enforced.
The fact of the matter is that I didn't say anything offensive to or about you and if you continue to make posts like the one I quoted it will likely get you banned (sometimes it takes a while for them to get around to it though). I am not going to argue with you about who started what between you and whomever else, all I know is that you started making questionable posts against me for no reason and this sort of attitude is not welcome here (notice how I am not insulting you or criticizing you as a person, I am telling you what you did wrong).
quote:
That’s useful to know, but it raises the question of why Jhud keeps just claiming “I explained this before” rather than actually posting a link to one of his earlier explanations.
If you want to find the discussion, you should search for it.
quote:
Let’s take a look at the explanation you linked to, and see if we can figure out why not:
Because it's time consuming and maybe he doesn't get paid to do this.
quote:
What Jhud is saying is that if you take away several parts of the flagellum, it will no longer function as a flagellum, even though it will still function as a Type III secretory system and therefore still provide an advantage.
Certain components of the flagellum may have different functions within different systems but you still haven't explained how they assembled themselves to form a flagellum in the first place and you haven't explained where the new components came from and how they formed. Furthermore, you haven't even explained how the other systems that certain components of the flagellum are in formed.
Please read the surrounding posts in that thread as it would help us reduce unnecessary redundancy and save all of us time.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 4/1/2008 1:22:52 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 4/1/2008 1:39:20 AM
|
|
|
Agahnim
Posts: 205
Joined: 2/27/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
The fact of the matter is that I didn't say anything offensive to or about you and if you continue to make posts like the one I quoted it will likely get you banned (sometimes it takes a while for them to get around to it though). I am not going to argue with you about who started what between you and whomever else, all I know is that you started making questionable posts against me for no reason and this sort of attitude is not welcome here (notice how I am not insulting you or criticizing you as a person, I am telling you what you did wrong).
I wasn’t insulting you as a person either; I was just commenting on the method of debating (if you can call it that) that you use here. You could be a wonderful person for all I know, but that doesn’t change the fact that you never reply to anyone’s posts in any amount of depth, and always bring up a bunch of questions/demands that don’t serve any purpose other than to take up the other person’s time. It bogs down what would otherwise be an informative discussion, and when other people reply to you it only makes the problem worse. So when I see this, I’m going to point it out.
Your next two comments are examples of this, so I’m not going to reply to them. But I will reply to your last one:
quote:
Certain components of the flagellum may have different functions within different systems but you still haven't explained how they assembled themselves to form a flagellum in the first place and you haven't explained where the new components came from and how they formed. Furthermore, you haven't even explained how the other systems that certain components of the flagellum are in formed.
Please read the surrounding posts in that thread as it would help us reduce unnecessary redundancy and save all of us time.
I already read them, and this is what I’m basing what I’m saying on. This is quoted from the article that Aristocrat linked to:
“Indeed, virtually every protein in the bacterial flagellum shows strong homologies [similarities in DNA or protein sequences] to other systems. This does not explain the step-by-step evolution of the bacterial flagellum. But once you admit that the parts of such a complex machine might have a useful function outside of that machine, you open the door to natural selection.”
So in other words, the only thing left for evolution to explain is how the components of the flagellum—each of which was useful on its own—assembled themselves. I’m not sure if evolution has an answer to this yet or not, but this is an example of the sort of thing I was talking about in my post that Jhud ignored. Every scientific theory in existence has certain things that it isn’t currently able to explain, and I gave an example of this in the case of quantum mechanics. Everyone assumes that the shortcomings of quantum mechanics are simply things that we simply don’t understand yet, and how the separate proteins of the flagellum assembled themselves is no larger or more difficult a question than how QM can be reconciled with General Relativity. Why do ID proponents claim that a deity must be responsible for these aspects of biology whose evolution isn’t currently understood, when nobody claims this about the shortcomings of any other theory?
_____________________________
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." --Mahatma Gandhi
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 4/1/2008 1:47:26 AM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 330
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Even if ID implied a god, that would not make ID wrong, or unscientific; implications are implications and evidence is evidence – we don’t dismiss evidence because it might affect our implications.
Agreed, however, starting from the position that god exists, and then attempting to find observations that support this belief, makes the whole thing suspect in my view. Basically, from my view, it's basing evidence on implications, not vice versa.
quote:
Every time a scientist manipulates a genome to effect a morphological change in an organism, or develops novel information in a genome, they produce evidence of mechanisms an intelligence could use to produced the life we see.[...] Wrong, to falsify ID is extremely easy; simply demonstrate the unguided development of a complex information system. As I have proposed a falsification schema, you your notion that it is not ‘falsifiable’ is disproved.
I've seen this falsification method mentioned before, and would like to ask a question about it. What is necessary, in your mind, to be considered unguided? For instance, if the Miller experiment, or one like it, had/does succeed in creating a proto-cell, will that falsify ID in your view, or reinforce it? After all, the experiment will have had to have been designed by an intelligent entity.
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 4/1/2008 2:13:10 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1294
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Agahnim
You could be a wonderful person for all I know, but that doesn’t change the fact that you never reply to anyone’s posts in any amount of depth, and always bring up a bunch of questions/demands that don’t serve any purpose other than to take up the other person’s time.
This is your opinion and these kinds of posts could get you banned. Again, this attitude is not welcome here.
Perhaps my posts take up your time because you have difficulty trying to refute them.
What purpose does the post I'm quoting serve? Stick to arguments, please stay away from telling us your perceptions of our debate tactics. They are irrelevant and a waste of time.
quote:
Your next two comments are examples of this, so I’m not going to reply to them.
I was just replying to your comments.
quote:
So in other words, the only thing left for evolution to explain is how the components of the flagellum—each of which was useful on its own—assembled themselves.
None of which are useful on their own. Some of which are useful in another system. Evolution still has a lot to explain and is faith based.
quote:
Indeed, virtually every protein in the bacterial flagellum shows strong homologies [similarities in DNA or protein sequences] to other systems.
Some proteins within the flagellum are similar to proteins that are used in other systems, but they're still different (and you still haven't addressed my last post).
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 4/1/2008 2:32:44 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 4/1/2008 3:32:11 AM
|
|
|
Agahnim
Posts: 205
Joined: 2/27/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Perhaps my posts take up your time because you have difficulty trying to refute them.
What purpose does the post I'm quoting serve? Stick to arguments, please stay away from telling us your perceptions of our debate tactics. They are irrelevant and a waste of time.
Here, let’s look at your post that I was responding to, and each of your one-liners in response to my points. I’m only going to explain this once, though, so please don’t ask me about it again.
Your first one:
quote:
I have already given evidence supporting the notion that the secular communities goal is to support materialism. My point is that even if the DI's mission is to support theism, this does not diminish ID any more than the fact that Dawkins attempt to support atheism diminishes evolution.
I addressed this specific point in my post that Jhud ignored. But you aren’t even attempting to address what I said; you’re just restating what Jhud did that I already responded to.
Your second:
quote:
According to some ID proponents maybe. At least they're honest about it, supporting their overall honesty.
This one doesn’t need a response, although it’s worth pointing out that the Wedge Document was originally intended to be a private internal document. The only reason they admitted their goal is because someone with access to this document leaked it to the internet.
Your third and fourth:
quote:
It's speculation.
quote:
Why not?
I already addressed both of these points also. If you think there’s something wrong with the way I addressed them, say what you think is wrong with my refutation, but all you’re doing is re-stating verbatim what I’ve already replied to.
Your fifth and sixth:
quote:
What specific reasons are there that God did not create the universe or that he could not have?
quote:
Can you provide an example of a specific problem with why God could not have created the universe or why an intelligent designer could not have done the same?
These two are irrelevant, because we aren’t discussing whether the universe had an intelligent designer; we’re discussing biology. I’m a Deist, so I happen to believe that the Universe was designed by a God, but I don’t believe there’s anything in biology that proves this. Whether there is or not, and whether the idea that there is can be considered an alternative to evolution, is the topic of this thread. These two posts are good examples of the sort of thing you bring up that serves no purpose than to take up the other person’s time.
Your seventh and eighth:
quote:
Fossils are subject to interpretation. ID makes specific predictions, falsify it.
quote:
New series of speculation. As for the discovery of fossils, we simply find different fossils in different states and we arbitrarily designate them stages. This is a matter of interpretation.
I answered both of these in the “What are birds” thread, and you did the same thing there that you’re doing here. Now you’re just restating the same claims you made there, even though when I asked you for examples of what you were claiming (such as specific, confirmed predictions unique to ID) you weren’t able to provide any, and just gave me more of your time-eating one-liners.
Your ninth:
quote:
If you want to claim that it did happen, then this is a reasonable standard of proof. If you claim this is impossible, then likewise, UCD is also impossible.
The message that you’re quoting explains why this is not a reasonable standard of proof. Something is not a reasonable standard of proof when within the amount of time we have to observe it, it’s impossible regardless of whether the thing to be proven is true or not.
Your tenth:
quote:
Bacteria reproduce way faster. The notion that a dozen separate mutations will happen and cause the diversity we see in life is speculation.
This does not even attempt to address the point I was making.
Your eleventh:
quote:
According to ID they were designed
No, according to ID it’s possible to determine for certain that they were designed. ID claims that this is more than just a possibility, it’s the logical conclusion of the evidence that exists. It’s an important difference.
And your twelfth:
quote:
because design is a better explanation.
And you haven’t yet explained why. Your paragraph at the end is an explanation of why I can’t prove that these structures actually evolved, but ID claims more than that evolution can’t be proven: it claims that the evolution of these structures is impossible. When someone makes a claim that something is impossible, the burden of proof is on them to show that it is. I’ve explained this to you multiple times before, but each time you just respond with more of these one-liners.
Since I’ve seen you whip out a post like this in under 20 minutes, I know that each of these one-liners can’t take you more than two minutes to write. For me to address any one of them in depth, on the other hand, would take me upwards of 20 minutes. So if you expect me to do this for each of them every time you post twelve at once, that’s four hours of my time for every 20 minutes that you spend writing them.
I wouldn’t have such a problem with this if the contents of your one-liners had any value to them, but all you do is repeat the same things that I’ve already answered, sometimes using the exact same words, without acknowledging what I’ve previously said about them at all. If you think there’s a problem with my refutations, you aren’t even saying what it is. Your newest post has another example of this—“ None of which are useful on their own.”—my previous post quoted an article from Ken Miller explaining how they are useful.
Now, do you see what’s wrong with the way you’re handling this? It takes twenty minutes for you to say the exact same things you’ve said before, while not even acknowledging what I’ve said in response, and each time you do this it would take me four hours to re-explain everything. When I’m debating with someone like you, the only appropriate course of action is to not let my time be wasted in this manner, and warn other people to avoid the same thing.
By the way, I hope you don’t just go back and re-state what you’ve already said, in response to what I said about your one-liners. You’ll only be supporting what I’m pointing out about the way you act here, and I’m not going to address these same points in response to you again.
< Message edited by Agahnim -- 4/1/2008 7:28:38 AM >
_____________________________
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." --Mahatma Gandhi
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 4/1/2008 10:19:36 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6709
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
This is really great, Jhud: now we get into the personal attacks and anecdotes about old threads instead of actual arguments. And when I say it’s great, I’m not being sarcastic. Anyone who registers at this forum and is undecided about this topic isn’t going to be impressed by what you say you’ve posted in the past, and can’t link to anymore because it’s no longer on the forum. This is what I mean when I talk about tactics—most people can tell when a person has the evidence to support their viewpoint, and when someone is just trying to cover up the fact that they don’t.
Look, I’ll help you out here since you seem confused.
In the ‘Search Term’ field type the term ‘flagellum’. In the ‘By Author’ field, type the word ‘jhud’. After pushing the ‘Ok’ button at the bottom, you will quickly see there are over 100 posts by me on the term flagellum. Many of those links will lead to lengthy discussions on the evolution of the flagellum, the reality of irreducible complexity, and numerous other aspects of ID. They aren’t ‘gone’ as you imagine, you simply haven’t tried yet. If you want to resurrect any of those threads and discuss the flagellum you can; simply make a post to the appropriate thread, and let us have a discussion here about the topic at hand.
Go for it, I know you can do it!
quote:
But I should comment on your new batch of personal attacks against me, even though I don’t know enough about drj11 to say anything about it in his case: assuming that you’ve been involved in these debates for as long as you’ve been registered at this forum, I’ve been involved in them for longer than you. At the main forum where I do this, Christianforums.com, I’ve been registered since January of 2004. I’ve been involved in more debates there than at least three-quarters of the members who are active in the creation/evolution section, and am well-enough known that people periodically post threads there specifically for me. Here are a couple examples:
I have been involved in these sorts of debates for over twenty years, back in the old days before the internet was invented (interestingly, part of that time was as an evolutionist), so ‘2004’ doesn’t really impress me that much.
quote:
So, who’s the noob that nobody bothers with once they get to know me? Based on what I’ve seen of your posts, the only reason anybody bothers replying to you is because otherwise it might look like you were able to refute something. But given what your posts have been like lately, I’m not even sure that’s still a risk.
I may have confused your noob status based on your chronic inability to read about and stay on topic, and continual whining about others ‘tactics’ when they didn’t kowtow to your obviously superior intellect. Often a noobishness isn’t based on length of time posting, but attitude when doing so.
And if you don’t want to communicate with me, just put me on ignore; then you won’t have to deal with my non-refutations of your meandering posts.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 4/1/2008 10:25:36 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6709
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Agreed, however, starting from the position that god exists, and then attempting to find observations that support this belief, makes the whole thing suspect in my view. Basically, from my view, it's basing evidence on implications, not vice versa.
ID starts with the idea that intelligence can be detected, not that 'god exists'.
I think everyone, regardless of their metaphysics, agrees that at some level, intelligence can be reliably detected - indeed, so current science fields depend on the notion.
quote:
I've seen this falsification method mentioned before, and would like to ask a question about it. What is necessary, in your mind, to be considered unguided? For instance, if the Miller experiment, or one like it, had/does succeed in creating a proto-cell, will that falsify ID in your view, or reinforce it? After all, the experiment will have had to have been designed by an intelligent entity.
While some might still dispute this, I think that had the Miller experiment succeeded in producing a cell that we wouldn't be having this conversation right now, because it would have definitively put to rest the notion that complex information systems can't arise via unguided means.
This is so because that experiment created a very generalized environment in which the experimenters had little final control. In short, it was an environment that could concievably exist in nature.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 4/1/2008 11:23:58 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1294
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Agahnim
I addressed this specific point in my post that Jhud ignored. But you aren’t even attempting to address what I said; you’re just restating what Jhud did that I already responded to.
No you didn't, what you said was.
quote:
You aren’t addressing my point. What Dawkins says doesn’t represent evolution as a whole, because Dawkins isn’t anything close to the only person responsible for that theory.
To which Jhud replied
quote:
First off, it doesn't matter how much I agree with Mike Gene; what matters is that his existence proves your thesis wrong; and as evolution is 150 years old we would expect a few more people to be involved.
Acknowledge you were wrong and move on. Furthermore, even if you're right and "What Dawkins says doesn’t represent evolution as a whole, because Dawkins isn’t anything close to the only person responsible for that theory." This does not negate the fact that, "even if the DI's mission is to support theism, this does not diminish ID any more than the fact that Dawkins attempt to support atheism diminishes evolution."
quote:
The message that you’re quoting explains why this is not a reasonable standard of proof.
No it doesn't.
quote:
Something is not a reasonable standard of proof when within the amount of time we have to observe it, it’s impossible regardless of whether the thing to be proven is true or not.
Claiming that something takes millions of years to happen is unfalsifiable and hence unscientific. Claiming that something won't happen is falsifiable. You don't know that it takes millions of years, that's speculation. It's not science. It could be true, but it's not science. We do know IC and SC systems do not arise independently of already existing IC and SC systems or design, this is science because it's falsifiable.
quote:
This does not even attempt to address the point I was making.
You said
quote:
If we get lucky and see one of these mutations every ten generations, in an organism that reproduces once per year, an irreducibly complex structure would take a minimum of 120 years to evolve.
To which I responded
quote:
Bacteria reproduce way faster. The notion that a dozen separate mutations will happen and cause the diversity we see in life is speculation.
It does address your point, you did not address mine.
quote:
No, according to ID it’s possible to determine for certain that they were designed.
Science doesn't deal with absolute proof. We can't determine for certain that the moon exists with absolute certainty. According to ID we can make a reasonable inference of design.
quote:
And you haven’t yet explained why. Your paragraph at the end is an explanation of why I can’t prove that these structures actually evolved, but ID claims more than that evolution can’t be proven: it claims that the evolution of these structures is impossible.
No, ID claims that there are certain characteristics that, when their origins are known, they are only seen in designed objects. So we look and see if those characteristics exist in objects of unknown origin and if so, we infer they are designed. Is this absolute proof they are designed (do we claim it's absolutely impossible for them to have evolved). No, but it is falsifiable evidence.
quote:
When someone makes a claim that something is impossible, the burden of proof is on them to show that it is.
Again, you're misunderstanding what ID claims. On the other hand, if you want to claim evolution is possible, the burden of proof is on you.
You're still not understanding how burden of proof works. If I were to claim that undetectable magic fairy dust exists, the burden of proof is not for you to prove that they don't or can't exist. The burden of proof is for me to prove they do exist. You can deduce that they don't exist because there are no observations supporting their existence. The notion that they exist is unfalsifiable and hence probably false. That's why you can claim they don't exist. The same applies to evolution. The reason why we can claim that IC and SC systems don't form independently of design (or existing IC and SC systems) is because they never do. The notion that they do form independently of design is unfalsifiable (it has never been observed) and hence it's probably false. That's why we can claim it probably never happened.
quote:
Since I’ve seen you whip out a post like this in under 20 minutes, I know that each of these one-liners can’t take you more than two minutes to write.
I have seen most of your arguments before (from other people) so repeating a refutation becomes easy over time.
quote:
For me to address any one of them in depth, on the other hand, would take me upwards of 20 minutes.
Well.... it could be that your posts use bad logic and it takes a long time to try and defend bad logic. Good logic, on the other hand, doesn't take very long to defend (it's quite easy). Another thing many of us have been doing this for quite a while and you haven't really posted anything we haven't seen before so repeating a refutation is easy.
quote:
I answered both of these in the “What are birds” thread, and you did the same thing there that you’re doing here. Now you’re just restating the same claims you made there, even though when I asked you for examples of what you were claiming (such as specific, confirmed predictions unique to ID) you weren’t able to provide any, and just gave me more of your time-eating one-liners.
These point have already been addressed in that thread (and I gave you specific ID predictions that turned out to be right. ie: junk DNA). Go back and read. Your alleged predictions that evolution made were false (and I explained why neither evolution nor ID predicts any specific anatomical features. There is more than one possible evolutionary path to get to the present which would yield different possible anatomical features with respect to fossils), I have already showed you how different evolutionists made opposite predictions and when that happens, someone is bound to be right no matter what the evidence and no matter how strongly it opposes evolution (then the person/people who were wrong get forgotten while those who were right get remembered and evolutionists point to them and say, "see, evolution predicted this" when the reality is, had the opposite been true they could have remembered the other evolutionists that were right and done the same thing). Jhud even pointed out how the researchers weren't sure if your alleged proto - feathers are really proto feathers or are they simply degraded real feathers, which pretty much refuted your whole proto feather argument. Your points have been addressed, now stop referring to your perception of our debate tactics (something that could get you banned here) and start addressing our points.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 4/1/2008 1:00:42 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 4/1/2008 12:09:52 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1294
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
Another note to Agahnim, if you want to quote something from me or anyone here that requires context and it's more than a page old (if it's on the same page or something that happened a few posts ago, it's easy to reference) please quote the relevant context (ie: quote what I quoted so I can know what I was responding to and hence know the context of my quote). Don't overquote, just quote enough for us to know the relevant context of our quotes. It's good message board etiquette and if you make us have to find the context of some quote that happened 5 pages back, others will probably make you do the same.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 4/1/2008 5:21:42 PM
|
|
|
Agahnim
Posts: 205
Joined: 2/27/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
I may have confused your noob status based on your chronic inability to read about and stay on topic, and continual whining about others ‘tactics’ when they didn’t kowtow to your obviously superior intellect. Often a noobishness isn’t based on length of time posting, but attitude when doing so.
Do you understand what I’m saying about “tactics” at all? It’s basically another way of describing the fact that you consider a discussion to be on topic only for exactly as long as it takes for the point you’re making to get refuted. If you want me to call it something else, fine. That doesn’t change what you’re doing.
In this thread, you and I were both posting about whether the methodology of ID was affected by the goals of the Discovery Institute, so if this was off-topic, so were your own posts about it. But you only had a problem with this, and began refusing to reply, after I explained it in detail. Our debate about bird origins is an even better example, because what you called a “red herring” there was what I had been discussing with the other posters before you showed up in that thread.
Why do you do this? After you show up in a thread like that one and bring up several tangential points, why on earth do you call it a “red herring” when I return to the point I was making before you started posting there? Perhaps you’re doing something other than trying to evade my points with this, but if you are, I can’t imagine what.
I’m not going to put you on ignore, at least not yet, since pointing out when you aren’t answering anything doesn’t require much effort from me. But why don’t you actually give me an explanation of why this was a “red herring” by your standards, and why the goals of the Discovery Institute were on topic enough for you to post about them, but only for exactly as long as it took for me to explain in detail why they were significant?
Bettawrekonize, I told you that if you simply restated all of your points from your previous point, I wasn’t going to re-address them. I’ll give you one more chance. Do you see what’s wrong with writing twelve separate two-minute quips in reply to separate parts of my post, and then expecting me to spend twenty minutes addressing each of them?
_____________________________
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." --Mahatma Gandhi
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 4/1/2008 7:15:21 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1294
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Agahnim
Do you understand what I’m saying about “tactics” at all?
Do you understand that your perceptions of our tactics are not relevant.
quote:
Bettawrekonize, I told you that if you simply restated all of your points from your previous point, I wasn’t going to re-address them.
You haven't addressed our points yet. Still waiting.
quote:
I’ll give you one more chance.
You'll give me one more chance and then what?
quote:
Do you see what’s wrong with writing twelve separate two-minute quips in reply to separate parts of my post, and then expecting me to spend twenty minutes addressing each of them?
Do you see why this post isn't relevant to this discussion? Do you have any relevant arguments to make? Are you going to address our points?
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 4/1/2008 7:26:15 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ID as an “alternative” to evolution? - 4/1/2008 8:21:24 PM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 330
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
I don't know how many times I've had to say this in the Science folder, but it looks like I'll have to do it one more time, at least.
Children, calm down and play nice.
Bettawrekonize, Agahnim, you've both strayed far afield from the original topic. You're eating a ton of board space with something that could just as easily be dealt with through Private Messages. As interesting as 'posting tactics' might be to the two of you, the rest of the board might not want to read through ten personal debate messages in order to reach one that has any relation to what was being discussed. So please, either civilly engage in debate about the relevant topic, or take it elsewhere.
Via this post, I'm giving you both a chance to simply drop it without having to get the last word in. Please take the opportunity.
< Message edited by Real_Solitude -- 4/1/2008 8:30:32 PM >
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
