Evidence for Design (3)

[OllieFranz]

I've read many articles from ID proponents and find what you say to be inaccurate. I doubt you have followed it closely or you would not be insinuating those things.

Perhaps you could provide some examples? Specifically a total re-defining of basic scientific terms. Or perhaps it is the evolution proponents that have hijacked the terms?

All of the papers Gradyll has linked to fit one or more of the three descriptions.

All it takes to disprove my satement is a single counter-example. Posting a link to a legitimate research paper from DI or one f the other ID "research institutes" will show me up far better than impotently ranting does.

 

[Loudmouth]

All of the papers Gradyll has linked to fit one or more of the three descriptions.

All it takes to disprove my satement is a single counter-example. Posting a link to a legitimate research paper from DI or one f the other ID "research institutes" will show me up far better than impotently ranting does.

ID proponent: There are tons of peer reviewed papers that support ID.

Evolutionist: Really? Show me one.

ID proponent: Why are you so lazy? Why don't you get off your duff and find the evidence that supports my position?

 

[OllieFranz]

I am saying is how can a page of quotes be false?

IF I were to post them here would I be false too?

After all they are other peoples words.

The Bible tells us that "there is no God." It is right there in David's own words at the beginning of Psalm 14. According to your logic, I am simply pasting a quote, and because its in David's own words, the it must be exactly what he meant. It does not matter that I had to hack the four words out of a longer sentence, or that later in the same psalm, David praises God, all that matters is that I was able to find those four words in that order all together.

 

[createdtoworship]

The Bible tells us that "there is no God." It is right there in David's own words at the beginning of Psalm 14. According to your logic, I am simply pasting a quote, and because its in David's own words, the it must be exactly what he meant. It does not matter that I had to hack the four words out of a longer sentence, or that later in the same psalm, David praises God, all that matters is that I was able to find those four words in that order all together.

do you call misquotes from the Bible quote mines?

no body does,

because quote mines only exist in the evolutionists mind.

 

[createdtoworship]

Did I also mention that "Transactions of the Wessex Institute" is not a peer reviewed journal?

and you know every single peer review institution in america do you? nnice!

Also, you can't even tell us about the science found in the fake paper?

I actually read it yes, you,

not so much.

Then link to one of those papers and discuss how it is a valid peer reviewed article on ID. What is stopping you?

do I have to do everything?

So says the person who is refusing to discuss a single one of those papers. Get off your fanny and show us how this is valid science that supports ID.

what you can't read?

 

[createdtoworship]

here is one

evidence of design in bird wings:
Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration

 

[mathetes123]

You went totally off subject. I am speaking about Intelligent Design. Not creationism. None of those points addresses ID theory or their peer reviewed papers or articles or books.

Did everything come from nothing?

How did life come from non life?

How did the first life develop the ability to reproduce itself in the fist generation?

Explain away irreducible complexity?

 

[Ursus scientia]

Did everything come from nothing?

How did life come from non life?

How did the first life develop the ability to reproduce itself in the fist generation?

Explain away irreducible complexity?

The first three points have nothing to do with evolution, they pertain to abiogenesis.

The fourth is simple: life is not irreducibly complex. There. : D

 

[Kylie]

other than all the peer reviews I posted?

those are evidence of design.

try this page:

Intelligent Reasoning: Measuring Complex Specified Information with Respect to Biology

Intelligent Reasoning: Biological Specification (Dembski CSI) and My explanation of CSI

a little about falsification and design inference:
Intelligent Reasoning: January 2006

Yeah, he's obviously not biased at all, is he?[/sarcasm]

It's a simple question... If I pick an object at random, what do I look for in that object that will tell me if it is a designed object?

 

[OllieFranz]

Did everything come from nothing?

Nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is the natural laws that govern the adaptation of living populations over generations. You need existing populations for those laws to act on.

How did life come from non life?

Nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is the natural laws that govern adaptation of living populations over generations. You need existing living populations for those laws to act on.

How did the first life develop the ability to reproduce itself in the fist generation?

Nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is the natural laws that govern adaptation of living populations over generations. You need existing generations of living populations for those laws to act on.

Explain away irreducible complexity?

Can't. There's no such thing.

 

[OllieFranz]

It's a simple question... If I pick an object at random, what do I look for in that object that will tell me if it is a designed object?

Good question, though I would add, "and how should I compensate for hard-wired psychological effects like pareidolia and apophenia?"

 

[createdtoworship]

Nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is the natural laws that govern the adaptation of living populations over generations. You need existing populations for those laws to act on.

.

I think your view of evolution is a little narrow.

 

[createdtoworship]

The first three points have nothing to do with evolution, they pertain to abiogenesis.

The fourth is simple: life is not irreducibly complex. There. : D

what is abiogenesis without evolution?

 

[createdtoworship]

Yeah, he's obviously not biased at all, is he?[/sarcasm]

It's a simple question... If I pick an object at random, what do I look for in that object that will tell me if it is a designed object?

IF it has CSI, and those links explained it.

 

[OllieFranz]

do you call misquotes from the Bible quote mines?

no body does,

because quote mines only exist in the evolutionists mind.

Accoding to you, I did not misquote. People have shown you how the words you and the pages you link to quote were taken out of context in exactly the same way, and you said "Maybe he changed his mind later in the paper. How do we know he didn't change it back after submitting the paper?" and other weak excuses to keep from admitting that the exact same trick I pulled on Psalm 14 was pulled on all of those scientific papers.

One or two might be passed over as having read too fast and misunderstood, but when you have four to ten per paper, and more than half the papers published have these "errors," you have to start suspecting that it is deliberate. Especially when they ignore corrections, and continue to print the same quotes. Whether or not it is deliberate, when it happens so ubiquitously, it helps to have a name for the practice. "Quote-mining" is the name that was settled on.

 

[OllieFranz]

IF it has CSI, and those links explained it.

Then what, specifically is the nature and amount of the difference in CSI levels between this structure:
Sphinx In Egypt Royalty Free Stock Photo - Image: 13868805

and this structure:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphinx_(Romania)

?

 

[EternalDragon]

Then what, specifically is the nature and amount of the difference in CSI levels between this structure:
Sphinx In Egypt Royalty Free Stock Photo - Image: 13868805

and this structure:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphynx_(Romania)

?

You can't tell that for yourself?

 

[OllieFranz]

You can't tell that for yourself?

No. Because CSI has never been scientifically defined in any quantifiable way.

 

[OllieFranz]

Just to clarify, I am asking how you determine the difference in design between a greatly weathered deliberately carved statue and a greatly weathered natural formation over which pareidolia has stamped a human face in our perceptions.

 

[OllieFranz]

I think your view of evolution is a little narrow.

No. Creationists use the words "evolution" and "Darwinism" as trash bins into which they toss any science they find inconvenient, including the social sciences. But the Theory of Evolution proper, is only the observable rules of adaptation of living populations over generations, including speciation. Nothing more. Common descent, which is what made the idea of evolution anathema to the earliest critics of Darwin, is an outgrowth of evolution, confirmed by other sciences, but even it is not, strictly speaking, part of the ToE. If Last Thursdayism were true, the laws of evolution would be exactly the same.