"ID Giants Wipe The Floor With Evolutionist Panel"

[HitchSlap]

Reality can take a hike.

Of course it does. This is necessarily a function of religion.

 

[afishamongmany]

Hi there Papias,
I appreciate this kind of posting, interesting, detailed and to the point.
(the first chunk of this post comes in a following post - sorry about that)

Creationists mislead (intentionally or not, I don’t know) when they present evidence against evolution as evidence for creationism. Even if it is very good evidence against evolution, that’s all it is.
ID boils down to the argument from incredulity, which is “because I can’t see how (whatever) could have evolved, it must have been created". Simple reflection shows that this is the same as saying “because I don’t understand biology, you must accept that creationism is true.”.

I don't think many people are being mislead. The differences between the for and against arguments on both sides are reasonably distinct. To say, about 'good evidence against evolution', 'that's all it is', is like the tree saying, 'its only an axe that's all it is'.

ID boils down to the argument from incredulity, which is “because I can’t see how (whatever) could have evolved, it must have been created". Simple reflection shows that this is the same as saying “because I don’t understand biology, you must accept that creationism is true.”.

With respect Papias (and a friendly smile) this last is baloney, or if you prefer codswallop. I've never heard of or met anyone who believes that God created all things 'according to their kind' because they couldn't believe in evolution. The argument for intelligent design comes overwhelmingly from the intelligent design that we are, and that we are immersed in. Are you really saying that no-one who understands biology believes that God created all things 'according to their kind'? I wonder what level of understanding you're thinking of? I have G.C.E. 'O' levels in Science I and II does that qualify?
Anyway don't worry, would never tell you that 'you must accept that creationism is true', though occasionally I might suggest that it could be.
Go well
><>

 

[HitchSlap]

Anyway don't worry, would never tell you that 'you must accept that creationism is true', though occasionally I might suggest that it could be.
Go well
><>

Your Nobel awaits.

 

[afishamongmany]

Ah dear, THIS below was the first part of my previous post and seems not to have made the crossing. Hope you can make the join up.

[QUOTE="Papias, post: 69954814, member: 134921"]Imagine a fishapod that gets it’s oxygen through gills. Now put that fishapod in low oxygen, stagnant waters, where it can get enough oxygen to live, but not enough to exercise strenuously. Then allow an internal sac to evolve into a lung, by which it can gasp air and get a little additional oxygen. The selective advantage of this is that even a poor lung gets the animal at least a little more oxygen than the gills alone supplied. As the lung evolves to be more efficient, soon the fishapod can venture onto land for short periods of time using the lung for oxygen. It (well, it’s descendants) evolve to get their oxygen from the lung, and the gills evolve away. Now its respiratory system is irreducibly complex, because removing the lung renders it unable to breathe. The simple way to remember this process is “add a part, then make that part necessary”. Because evolutionary routes can often easily be seen for interlocking complex systems, IC often provides evidence for evolution, not for ID.[/QUOTE]

However, though the imaginary process you outline admirably describes how irreducible complexity might theoretically come about for a single system, your hypothesis only serves to highlight, for me, the unbelievableness of Dawinism. Your reasoning says, "Then allow an internal sac to evolve into a lung", and then ... , and then ... Even if it were believable that a mechanism of mutational change could by itself produce the wonderful complexity and diversity of life we have, the time scales needed for that mechanism to get to where we are are not believable.
You say, "Because evolutionary routes can often easily be seen for interlocking complex systems, IC often provides evidence for evolution, not for ID." I am interested to know how these routes can be seen? The route you describe above has been imagined not seen. I am also interested to know how existing 'interlocking complex systems' (that I suppose is life as we know it) provide evidence for a theory that postulates that all starts long ago, very, very, long ago with primeval chemical soup?
><>

 

[afishamongmany]

Science is, or should be, about the truth. Truth in its abstract, spiritual or metaphysical forms is important, but science deals only with empirical truth. The scientific method has proven itself over time to be a reliable way to arrive at real, measurable, observable truth.

Hi there Jimmy D,
I've nothing against the scientific method. I'm all for it, it can be very useful. However Dawinism has not been proven, is not measurable and is not an observable truth.
Go well
><>

 

[afishamongmany]

Meh, let me know when the DI actually "discovers" something, and stops letting real scientists do all the heavy lifting only to slide in Tom Cruise style, ala "Risky Business," and vomit "goddidit" over everything.

Hello HitchSlap,
I enjoy robust intelligent discussion and humorous give and take. I can put up with 'I'm right (clever)-you're wrong (idiot)- blah blah'. But your representation of the reasonable and widely held view that 'God did it' as vomit is just plain
o f f e n s i v e.
Don't worry I'm getting over it. I pray you will.
><>

 

[HitchSlap]

Hello HitchSlap,
I enjoy robust intelligent discussion and humorous give and take. I can put up with 'I'm right (clever)-you're wrong (idiot)- blah blah'. But your representation of the reasonable and widely held view that 'God did it' as vomit is just plain
o f f e n s i v e.
Don't worry I'm getting over it. I pray you will.
><>

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I am watching a youtube video with the provocative title "ID Giants Wipe The Floor With Evolutionist Panel".

At 22:26 the ID panel was asked why a Darwinian research approach should be given up in favor for an ID approach. Before that (from 16:24 and forward) the ID panel was presented with example research results by the Darwinian approach on (claimed) irreducible complex system. As answer, an almost 15 minutes long criticism of the Darwinian research result was done by Michael Behe.

The question was reformulated at 36:11, and the ID panel was again confronted on what research and data the ID approach have produced. Steven Meyer answered this by saying "that is your research program ... go for it, we love it, but we got a different research program ... we should not stop doing what we are doing".

That is all fine and well, but what research is the ID movement doing then and why should we prefer the ID approach? That question was left unanswered by both Behe and Meyer. I have to say, I find their respond, not only empty worded, but very embarrassing beyond words to express.

Why did Behe and Meyer not answer a direct question, when they had the chance to explain for everyone what ID research is about, but instead decided to make a lengthy criticism to the Darwinian research approach?

May the answer be that ID does not do any research and as such got no data to present, instead all ID got, and does, is criticism of current knowledge gaps in the Darwinian approach? This would then be the old "god of the gaps" fallacy. As such Meyer and Behe can keep play their (pseudoscientific) rhetoric argumentation game forever since there will always be gaps in our knowledge they can fall back to - as Behe clearly demonstrated when he conceded there might exists a function for the parts of an irreducible complex system but still maintains the idea the system is irreducible complex since he now turn to claim there is no viable evolutionary path in where the parts possible can come together to form the system. Thus the games of the god of the gaps goes one....

So what? The ID people know you aren't going to buy their research or faith in God/the Bible as support for their position, but that doesn't mean they have no right to slap Darwin's junk around.

It's really a pretty level playing field, they think ours is Junk just as we do theirs, I don't buy your evidence and you don't buy the Bible. What is new here?

On the:

"ID Giants Wipe The Floor With Evolutionist Panel"

That means little. After watching my first youtube debate with Bill Nye and Ken Ham and a few since, Nye fanboys were claiming Nye "owned" Ham, but I saw something completely different. It all depends on what side one represents, and if the people have enough sense to be objective. So I wouldn't read a lot into that title, you can almost bet it's prejudiced and only represents one of the sides way of looking at things.

 

[HitchSlap]

So what? The ID people know you aren't going to buy their research or faith in God/the Bible as support for their position, but that doesn't mean they have no right to slap Darwin's junk around.

It's really a pretty level playing field, they think ours is Junk just as we do theirs, I don't buy your evidence and you don't buy the Bible. What is new here?

On the:

"ID Giants Wipe The Floor With Evolutionist Panel"

That means little. After watching my first youtube debate with Bill Nye and Ken Ham and a few since, Nye fanboys were claiming Nye "owned" Ham, but I saw something completely different. It all depends on what side one represents, and if the people have enough sense to be objective. So I wouldn't read a lot into that title, you can almost bet it's prejudiced and only represents one of the sides way of looking at things.

There's only one way to "look at things."

Sorry, but, ToE enjoys the facts, and creationism/ID/cdesign proponentsists lose every time.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Sorry, but, ToE enjoys the facts, and creationism/ID/cdesign proponentsists lose every time.

Lose? we shall see.

Besides, who the losers are is just one sides point of view. Sure you are arrogant enough to assume that covers it....period, but that doesn't make it so.

 

[HitchSlap]

Lose? we shall see.

Besides, who the losers are is just one sides point of view. Sure you are arrogant enough to assume that covers it....period, but that doesn't make it so.

"Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution."

Creationism is a cultish construct whose sole purpose is to assuage the vanities of the ignorant and fortify narcissistic religious leanings.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Creationism is a cultish construct whose sole purpose is to assuage the vanities of the ignorant and fortify narcissistic religious leanings.

Sure it is, I mean what else can we call something that is based on people treating others well and doing good. I mean that HAS to be a terrible thing...how vane is all that? What in the world was wrong with me in thinking Christianity is a good thing?

 

[HitchSlap]

Sure it is, I mean what else can we call something that is based on people treating others well and doing good. I mean that HAS to be a terrible thing...how vane is all that? What in the world was wrong with me in thinking Christianity is a good thing?

I was making a distinction between creationism and Christianity, as they're not synonymous.

And no, I do not think honor killings, slavery and child mutilation are "good things."

 

[bhsmte]

Sure it is, I mean what else can we call something that is based on people treating others well and doing good. I mean that HAS to be a terrible thing...how vane is all that? What in the world was wrong with me in thinking Christianity is a good thing?

Why would one need to believe in biblical creationism, to treat others well and do good?

 

[Kenny'sID]

And no, I do not think honor killings, slavery and child mutilation are "good things."

Hope not. Neither do I.

Why would one need to believe in biblical creationism, to treat others well and do good?

Why are you asking me that?

 

[bhsmte]

Hope not. Neither do I.



Why are you asking me that?

Post number 52.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Post number 52.

Nothing in that post that indicates any such thing...again, why are you asking me that?

Fact is you are seeing things that simply aren't there because of your agenda, or because you want to see it.. Kinda gives us a bit of insight as to what evolutionists do and how they draw their conclusions of certain physical circumstances.

 

[HitchSlap]

Nothing in that post that indicates any such thing...again, why are you asking me that?

Fact is you are seeing things that simply aren't there because of your agenda, or because you want to see it.. Kinda gives us a bit of insight as to what evolutionists do and how they draw their conclusions of certain physical circumstances.

Or you could just read the OT. It's all in there, and your god sanctioned it.

 

[bhsmte]

Nothing in that post that indicates any such thing...again, why are you asking me that?

Fact is you are seeing things that simply aren't there because of your agenda, or because you want to see it.. Kinda gives us a bit of insight as to what evolutionists do and how they draw their conclusions of certain physical circumstances.

Read the post.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Or you could just read the OT. It's all in there, and your god sanctioned it.

Not sure what you want me to read? How is that in reply to what you quoted?

Read the post.

Read the post? I wrote the post...