An atheists world (2)

[createdtoworship]

That must be why you like doing it so much.

huh?

Name two.



Name two.

casey luskin stated today that they employ a few evolutionists, you can go to discovery institute website and email him.

and as far as the other I know of two public athiests that are also ID'ers I am sure there are many non public athiests that are ID'ers.

I don't remember the one's name, but here is the other:


note this one tries to say there is some evidence the designer is God, but rejects that view.....
Atheist defends Intelligent Design - National methodist | Examiner.com

"This [ID] is a doctrine that I endorse, though I realize that not all atheists will endorse it. The reason that I endorse the doctrine is that (as I’ll explain in Chapter 3) I think there is some evidence for an intelligent designer" - Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design, p38

Except that when called upon to show their differences, they were stone cold busted for having the exact same content.

accept I just asked if they endorse that old ID literature, and they said it's 20 years old and outdated and they no longer endorse it.

 

[lasthero]

casey luskin stated today that they employ a few evolutionists, you can go to discovery institute website and email him.

Casey Luskin is a liar, so that's not worth much.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Casey Luskin is a liar, so that's not worth much.

It is a shame. The sort of lies that would be career ending for a scientist is cause for promotion for people like Luskin.

Perhaps now would be a good time to rerun your video by TheLivingDinosaur.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ha.....you better hope not................the gaps are getting smaller and fewer every day...!

Ya ... with one billion pieces of physical biological evidence on display, and each piece representing a different year, you still have 71.42% of gaps to fill.

I can almost guarantee your universe will achieve thermal equilibrium LONG before your gaps close.

And for the record, does anyone even know how many physical biological pieces of evidence we have on display; and how many specific calendar years they represent?

 

[biggles53]

Ya ... with one billion pieces of physical biological evidence on display, and each piece representing a different year, you still have 71.42% of gaps to fill.

I can almost guarantee your universe will achieve thermal equilibrium LONG before your gaps close.

And for the record, does anyone even know how many physical biological pieces of evidence we have on display; and how many specific calendar years they represent?

What an idiotic concept.....you really are grasping....!

Your dopey idea is like saying that, unless you can produce a photo of yourself for EVERY day of your life, then the adult we see today cannot possibly have developed from the youth in the earlier pictures.....!

You are a joke.....

 

[AV1611VET]

What an idiotic concept.....you really are grasping....!

Your dopey idea is like saying that, unless you can produce a photo of yourself for EVERY day of your life, then the adult we see today cannot possibly have developed from the youth in the earlier pictures.....!

You are a joke.....

I'm asking you evolutionists how many pieces ... that's how many ... pieces of physical biological evidence are on display throughout the world, and how many specific calendar years they represent?

I'm expecting someone to say something like:

There are currently 10,157 fossils on display; representing about 8,918 specific calendar years.

 

[EternalDragon]

What an idiotic concept.....you really are grasping....!

Your dopey idea is like saying that, unless you can produce a photo of yourself for EVERY day of your life, then the adult we see today cannot possibly have developed from the youth in the earlier pictures.....!

You are a joke.....

So are you saying that not all of what evolution proposes can be observed, tested and repeated? It is a guess only as they don't have all the pieces?

 

[Lethe]

It is a guess only as they don't have all the pieces?

What I heard: It's a duck!

 

[Subduction Zone]

So are you saying that not all of what evolution proposes can be observed, tested and repeated? It is a guess only as they don't have all the pieces?

There is such a thing as a stupid question.

The analogy holds. If you had only 1000 pictures of a person over his lifetime would you say there are too many gaps and we can't tell that this is the same person from baby to adult?


It is amazing how disrespectful of evidence that a group with absolutely nothing is.


Of course if you have no evidence, if you do not know how much work was done getting that evidence, the care needed to get that evidence, I can see how you might not value this pearl of great price. If it threatens your mythology I can see why you would want to attack it.

Just remember, you are laughably wrong. We are only trying to help you.

So what part of the theory of evolution are you having trouble with? What parts don't you understand?

 

[AV1611VET]

... the answer to every question is 'God did it'.

How I wish!

Do you think anyone else can do better?

 

[EternalDragon]

How can you even ask such a thing when you believe something that has nothing, no evidence what so ever.

What would you do if there was no ToE? how would you be able to show that creationism was true?
what questions does creationism answer? none, all creationism does is make statements just like all religions.
A lot of talk but no answers, the answer to every question is 'God did it'.

What do I believe that has no evidence? Please be more specific.

And yes, if there was no ToE, scientists would be able to show that Intelligent Design is true. (Or if you want to call it creationism, then fine.)
Why? Because the exact same evidence would still be there. In fact, they already do show ID is true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How I wish!

Do you think anyone else can do better?

That's right. Your side relies on lies and distortions too.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What do I believe that has no evidence? Please be more specific.

And yes, if there was no ToE, scientists would be able to show that Intelligent Design is true. (Or if you want to call it creationism, then fine.)
Why? Because the exact same evidence would still be there. In fact, they already do show ID is true.

How so?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's right. Your side relies on lies and distortions too.

Do you think you can distort better?

 

[HitchSlap]

What do I believe that has no evidence?

Specifically, unicorns, literal seven day creation, a world wide flood and talking snakes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do I believe that has no evidence? Please be more specific.

And yes, if there was no ToE, scientists would be able to show that Intelligent Design is true. (Or if you want to call it creationism, then fine.)
Why? Because the exact same evidence would still be there. In fact, they already do show ID is true.

As I explained to you earlier, your side has no scientific evidence that supports their beliefs.



Scientific evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

That means since there are no testable scientific hypotheses for creation there is no scientific evidence for creationism.

Not that your side has not made hypotheses in the past. All of them have been quickly debunked. They no longer make testable hypotheses. The scientists on your side know that there is no scientific evidence for creationism and avoid making testable hypotheses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you think you can distort better?

Since we can support our claims there is no need to distort.

The sort of lies that would end a scientists career make a creationist a star. Look at Kent Hovind, one of the worst lying creationists ever. He made the mistake of thinking he could lie to the IRS too. They don't like lies at all.

If a scientists got caught openly lying he would be finished. People on your side might be punished after they die for lying. Scientists get punished in this life if they are caught lying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do I believe that has no evidence? Please be more specific.

And yes, if there was no ToE, scientists would be able to show that Intelligent Design is true. (Or if you want to call it creationism, then fine.)
Why? Because the exact same evidence would still be there. In fact, they already do show ID is true.

No, that evidence already shows ID to be wrong.

Do you think that if evolution were not here that the evidence would be any different?

Scientific evidence is a collection of facts and data, that does not change regardless of the theories that are present. There is no hypothesis of ID. In fact it is hard to even get a definition of ID. It ranges in definition from evolution with guidance, which is what Michael Behe seems to believe, in other words they do believe in a common ancestor for all life, they only say "Godidit" for the fiddly bits and ID ranges all of the way to creationism in sheep's clothing.

That is one of the reasons I am not fond of people who claim that they believe "ID". What version of ID do you believe in?

 

[EternalDragon]

How so?

Genetics, biological nanomachinery, DNA code (language),
etc. Let me also just throw this out there.

Peer-review is irrelevant as a requirement of science.

ID theory in a nutshell:

Observations: ID begins with observations that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). (An event is complex if it is unlikely, and specified if it matches some independent pattern.)

Hypothesis: Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI.

Experiment: Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be tested and discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of their parts to function. Mutational sensitivity tests can also be used to identify high CSI in proteins and other biological structures.

Conclusion: When experimental work uncovers irreducible complexity, or high CSI in biology, researchers conclude that such structures were designed. This is because, in our experience, intelligence is the only known cause of high CSI.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Genetics, biological nanomachinery, DNA code (language),
etc. Let me also just throw this out there.

Peer-review is irrelevant as a requirement of science.

ID theory in a nutshell:

Observations: ID begins with observations that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). (An event is complex if it is unlikely, and specified if it matches some independent pattern.)

Hypothesis: Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI.

Experiment: Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be tested and discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures through genetic knockout experiments to determine if they require all of their parts to function. Mutational sensitivity tests can also be used to identify high CSI in proteins and other biological structures.

Conclusion: When experimental work uncovers irreducible complexity, or high CSI in biology, researchers conclude that such structures were designed. This is because, in our experience, intelligence is the only known cause of high CSI.

How is the construct of CSI operationalised for the purposes of research?

Can you provide some examples of irreducible complexity in biological systems? Not the usual examples that ID proponents refer to, but actual examples?