Evidence for Design (3)

[createdtoworship]

It is not begging the question when both downy tufts and, later, feathers (showing the evolution of feathers) are found on dinosaurs that were never designed for flight.

Not to mention that even if there were a problem, "begging the question" would not be the proper label, as I didn't claim to prove that feathers were developed as insulation, I just claimed that, given the evidence, it was more likely an explanation than flight control. Flight control is a secondary usage.

It was right on the button, a description of your quotation, not you. Tufts don't mean nothing, I have hair, that doesn't mean they will grow into wings someday.

 

[createdtoworship]

If the subject of the paper is biology, yes. Why is that so hard to understand?

I don't think you want to go there. Because here is whats next....a phd in related field. So now whats next is a prestigious institution that I personally like to do my peer reviews, that could possibly be next. So I think I am reducing your pool of peer reviews to what? Nada?

 

[createdtoworship]

A series of logical fallacies, and a paper devoid of any positive ID hypotheses.



How was that hypothesis tested?



I understand it just fine. The whole paper can be summed up thusly:

1. We can't think of a way that avian lungs and feathers could evolve, even though there are viable pathways found in the literature which we refuse to reference.

2. Therefore God.

no mention of God, so you are dead wrong. Plus do you honestly think if it mentioned God (which may in fact be the desinger), it would have been published and peer reviewed?

 

[createdtoworship]

Yep, you keep racking up the points, don't you grady.

Whats the imaginary tally on your scoreboard?

I am doing fairly well here, not me......but design.

It's what happens when you have no arguments,

no transitionals,

no mechanisms,

etc.

I feal sorry for the competition.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I don't think you want to go there. Because here is whats next....a phd in related field. So now whats next is a prestigious institution that I personally like to do my peer reviews, that could possibly be next. So I think I am reducing your pool of peer reviews to what? Nada?

Why would you have a non-biologist peer reviewing a paper about biology? What would you possible hope to achieve?

 

[Kylie]

IF it has CSI, and those links explained it.

CSI. Complex specified Information, huh?

Shame that it only applies to biology, those links you gave me. Since we've never had a truly artificial biological life form, I can't actually put this into practice.

Here's a more specific example for you...

Let's say I meet someone I've never seen before. How do I tell if they are wearing a watch or not?

 

[OllieFranz]

It was right on the button, a description of your quotation, not you. Tufts don't mean nothing, I have hair, that doesn't mean they will grow into wings someday.

Of course downy tufts will never grow into wings. Where did you get that nonsense?

Down is not hair, it is the precursor to feathers. The first therepods that needed to conserve boy heat also were the first creatures to have down. At first it was just tufts, covering critical heat-loss areas, then it spread. and the down became more defined. Until it was feathers.

But the downy tufts did not "grow" into feathers. Each change was on the genetic level, and each took many generations to become prominant in the population.

 

[Black Akuma]

so now all peer review must be peered only by biologists?

This surprises you? Who else would you expect to peer review a biology paper? Random people off the street?

Why do you think it's called 'peer' review?

 

[createdtoworship]

CSI. Complex specified Information, huh?

Shame that it only applies to biology, those links you gave me. Since we've never had a truly artificial biological life form, I can't actually put this into practice.

Here's a more specific example for you...

Let's say I meet someone I've never seen before. How do I tell if they are wearing a watch or not?

If you can see it, or if they telll you.

 

[createdtoworship]

Why would you have a non-biologist peer reviewing a paper about biology? What would you possible hope to achieve?

ok, then our new rules. Updated. Now please provide one peer review of any subject relating to ID, evolution, etc. and proving it correct.


must be phd in related field of study
And also peer reviewed by a scientific board of no affiliation with the person doing the paper.
must be on topic


IF you don't provide one, I assume that you dont have one.

also if you provide one and it doesn't hold up to the above I will discredit the peer review from this forum as legitimate and label all as dishonest if they use it again.


I await your response.

(this is what you guys do, and or , have done to me in the past, just sayin)

 

[createdtoworship]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7791772/#post64637300

I gave up long ago trying to debate with sound arguments and evidences.

woops, you just let that one slip didn't ya?

lol

 

[EternalDragon]

Of course downy tufts will never grow into wings. Where did you get that nonsense?

Down is not hair, it is the precursor to feathers. The first therepods that needed to conserve boy heat also were the first creatures to have down. At first it was just tufts, covering critical heat-loss areas, then it spread. and the down became more defined. Until it was feathers.

But the downy tufts did not "grow" into feathers. Each change was on the genetic level, and each took many generations to become prominant in the population.

I really don't understand how any intelligent person would actually believe that hypothesis. Did you observe it happening? Can you reproduce it? Can you test it?

Evidence please.

 

[createdtoworship]

I really don't understand how any intelligent person would actually believe that hypothesis. Did you observe it happening? Can you reproduce it? Can you test it?

Evidence please.

yeah, and maybe he can provide a respectable peer review with phd in related field of study, and be from an institution unrelated to the author....those are our new rules for evidence, and peer review.....thats loud mouth, and dave ellis.

 

[OllieFranz]

If you can see it, or if they telll you.

"If you can see it...."

Unless the "pendant watch" you can see is really a locket.
Unless the "wristwatch" you can see is really an ID bracelet
Unless the "pocket watch" you can see is just a watch fob accent without the watch.

You need to investigate, not just assume that everything is what you hope they are.

"...or if they tell you."

No one has ever lied to you? You can trust that they are telling you the truth, but you can't know until you verify for yourself.

 

[createdtoworship]

"If you can see it...."

Unless the "pendant watch" you can see is really a locket.
Unless the "wristwatch" you can see is really an ID bracelet
Unless the "pocket watch" you can see is just a watch fob accent without the watch.

You need to investigate, not just assume that everything is what you hope they are.

"...or if they tell you."

No one has ever lied to you? You can trust that they are telling you the truth, but you can't know until you verify for yourself.

I would ask them for the time, if they use the watch you know it's real. easy.

it involves senses and a bit of wit.

ID is like that.

But ollie you are the person who would never ask the time, because you are so sure that the world is lying to you.

 

[OllieFranz]

I would ask them for the time, if they use the watch you know it's real. easy.

it involves senses and a bit of wit.

Exactly! It takes investigation.

ID is like that.

No, ID says "it looks designed, so it must be designed." That is the same as your first answer "You can see it." No investigation, just faith.

But ollie you are the person who would never ask the time, because you are so sure that the world is lying to you.

What was it that President Reagan used to say? Oh yeah! "Trust, but verify."

At least with that barb, you finally admit that ID is nothing more than blind faith.

 

[Dave Ellis]

ok, then our new rules. Updated. Now please provide one peer review of any subject relating to ID, evolution, etc. and proving it correct.

must be phd in related field of study
And also peer reviewed by a scientific board of no affiliation with the person doing the paper.
must be on topic

IF you don't provide one, I assume that you dont have one.

also if you provide one and it doesn't hold up to the above I will discredit the peer review from this forum as legitimate and label all as dishonest if they use it again.

I await your response.

(this is what you guys do, and or , have done to me in the past, just sayin)

That's not what we've done at all, and you're dodging my point.

My point is, it only makes sense to have someone that has an education in biology to peer review a paper about biology. Reproduce the experiments, and challenge the findings if they see something that doesn't add up.

Why would someone who has no education in the field be considered a peer? It would be absurd to have a physicist peer review biology, or have a biologist peer review quantum mechanics. What could they ever possibly hope to achieve?

Peer review is set up so that people who understand the field can double check and critique the work of their peers. It's the part of the process in which the information and findings is vetted and put to the test. It's there so any personal bias of the original scientist can be removed from the equation by the impartial views of other scientists. In short, if a scientist wants to get a certain finding and rigs his experiment to produce it, peer review will catch that and expose it... or at the very least show that what he's hypothesizing is not true.

The problem with ID however is that there's nothing there to test, which is one of the reasons why it's never passed beyond peer review.

 

[createdtoworship]

That's not what we've done at all, and you're dodging my point.

My point is, it only makes sense to have someone that has an education in biology to peer review a paper about biology. Reproduce the experiments, and challenge the findings if they see something that doesn't add up.

Why would someone who has no education in the field be considered a peer? It would be absurd to have a physicist peer review biology, or have a biologist peer review quantum mechanics. What could they ever possibly hope to achieve?

Peer review is set up so that people who understand the field can double check and critique the work of their peers. It's the part of the process in which the information and findings is vetted and put to the test. It's there so any personal bias of the original scientist can be removed from the equation by the impartial views of other scientists. In short, if a scientist wants to get a certain finding and rigs his experiment to produce it, peer review will catch that and expose it... or at the very least show that what he's hypothesizing is not true.

The problem with ID however is that there's nothing there to test, which is one of the reasons why it's never passed beyond peer review.

don't you think that is up to the peer review board? ARe not you taking their job?

 

[createdtoworship]

Exactly! It takes investigation.



No, ID says "it looks designed, so it must be designed." That is the same as your first answer "You can see it." No investigation, just faith.



What was it that President Reagan used to say? Oh yeah! "Trust, but verify."

At least with that barb, you finally admit that ID is nothing more than blind faith.

faith has nothing to do with ID and I have proved that with numerous articles and excerpts before.

 

[Subduction Zone]

faith has nothing to do with ID and I have proved that with numerous articles and excerpts before.

And yet it can be shown that ID is simply creationism in sheep's clothing.

That was shown in the Dover trial.