An atheists world (2)

[HitchSlap]

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.

Goddidit? Why don't you let the scientists continue to do science, k?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Wrong, peer review is a must for science.

Why? Because people are fallible. Peer review is how errors and mistakes are caught.

Creationists don't like peer review because there obvious errors are caught there and their articles are never published. And peer review is not the end. Occasionally articles with mistakes or incorrect conclusions do make it through peer review. That is why peer review is not the last step for science. To really be accepted by science an idea must then pass the onslaught of attack of other scientists. If they can find something that peer review missed they will probably find it.

There are two huge things wrong with claims of "irreducible complexity". First off it is only an argument from ignorance. Nothing more. It claims "You can't explain this, therefore Godidit." The problem for IDists is that practically every so called claim of "irreducibly complex" has been reduced and they weren't all that complex after all.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

Lying is lying -- no matter who does it, or what the content of the lie is.

It took the United States Government to expose Mr. Hovind, and he didn't go to prison for lying, he went to prison for cheating.

But when e-scientists callously use that term, innocent people get accused.

In fact, Jesus was [falsely] accused of lying.

When a person is quick to brand another person a liar, or brand what he is saying as a lie, I get suspicious.

 

[HitchSlap]

Lying is lying -- no matter who does it, or what the content of the lie is.

It took the United States Government to expose Mr. Hovind, and he didn't go to prison for lying, he went to prison for cheating.

But when e-scientists callously use that term, innocent people get accused.

In fact, Jesus was [falsely] accused of lying.

When a person is quick to brand another person a liar, or brand what he is saying as a lie, I get suspicious.

Wrong. Hovind lied about his assets and intentionally hid them from the feds.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong. Hovind lied about his assets and intentionally hid them from the feds.

AV has a strange definition of "lying".

 

[EternalDragon]

Goddidit? Why don't you let the scientists continue to do science, k?

There is no God mentioned there.

Scientists are doing science with ID theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no God mentioned there.

Scientists are doing science with ID theory.

Please try to be honest.

We all know that the "designer" was supposed to be your god.

Here an (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more) intelligent designer did it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

There is no God mentioned there.

Scientists are doing science with ID theory.

What is their progress on understanding how the designer did it?

 

[HitchSlap]

There is no God mentioned there.

Scientists are doing science with ID theory.

Science and reality are blithely unaware of any gods. Science works without a god concept. At exactly the point in the scientific method where we should be asking questions, ID stops and declares, "goddidit." It's silly.

 

[EternalDragon]

What is their progress on understanding how the designer did it?

That is not part of the theory.

And despite Subduction Zones attempt at his own intelligence, there is no "God" mentioned in the theory or any attempt to identify the ID.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wrong. Hovind lied about his assets and intentionally hid them from the feds.

Okay, he lied about his assets and intentionally hid them from the feds.

Now tell me why he went to prison ... officially, that is.

 

[lasthero]

That is not part of the theory.

Then it's not much of a theory. A theory can't just say 'it happens because it happens' and leave it at that. It has to actually explain how it works.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV has a strange definition of "lying".

Ya ... it carries only two ingredients,* which is one more than you guys can handle.

* A lie is an untruth, told with the intent to deceive.

 

[HitchSlap]

Okay, he lied about his assets and intentionally hid them from the feds.

Now tell me why he went to prison ... officially, that is.

Officially, he routinely had his wife make less than 10,000 cash deposits, transferred assets to other family members, lied about his income, illegally paid his employees and failed to pay taxes on them. All told, 58 federal counts, and his accomplice wife, 44.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is not part of the theory.

And despite Subduction Zones attempt at his own intelligence, there is no "God" mentioned in the theory or any attempt to identify the ID.

If you can't be honest what is the point debating with you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Officially, he routinely had his wife make less than 10,000 cash deposits, transferred assets to other family members, lied about his income, illegally paid his employees and failed to pay taxes on them. All told, 58 federal counts, and his accomplice wife, 44.

Care to try again?

 

[HitchSlap]

Care to try again?

What are you getting at, chief?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That is not part of the theory.

And despite Subduction Zones attempt at his own intelligence, there is no "God" mentioned in the theory or any attempt to identify the ID.

Why not? It would seem to be the most significant part of the theory, if indeed the theory were to be taken seriously. Declaring that a designer was responsible invites the question of how the designer was able to accomplish his/her/its design. Not to mention the related question of where the designer came from...

 

[AV1611VET]

What are you getting at, chief?

The closest thing I can think of that Mr. Hovind would go to prision for by "lying" would be "perjury."

Mr. Hovind did not go to prison for lying.

If you think he did, I'm sure you can show me from one of those 44 indictments (or however many there were) that were mentioned?

 

[Loudmouth]

The closest thing I can think of that Mr. Hovind would go to prision for by "lying" would be "perjury."

Or in this case, tax evasion. By not reporting his income he was lying to the feds.