Intelligent Design / Evolution

[CaliforniaSun]

That question cuts both ways?

Any evidence would go a long way.

I ask a straight forward question, and you equivocate.

I'll take that as a provisional "no," then.

 

[idscience]

For me, it's simple: Show me god.

You'll see him.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

I ask a straight forward question, and you equivocate.

I'll take that as a provisional "no," then.

Did you see my exchange with that Joey Arnold?

"There's masses of really obvious, utterly convincing, scientifically valid evidence for ID, but I'm not going to tell you what it is"... my paraphrasing pretty much every ID/Creationist I have asked for evidence of their POV for the last 15 years.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

(originally by Cabal)
Of course, all this obfuscation and deliberate evasion could just be a sign that you actually have no evidence for your case.

(The oracle-from-the-matrix pseudo-profundity doesn't really come over too well, by the way.)

 

[JoeyArnold]

Is macro-science just as accurate as micro-science?

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Is macro-science just as accurate as micro-science?

You aren't allowed to comment any more until you provide us some of the evidence you promised a few pages ago.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

You aren't allowed to comment any more until you provide us some of the evidence you promised a few pages ago.

 

[CabVet]

Did you see my exchange with that other guy?

"There's masses of really obvious, utterly convincing, scientifically valid evidence for ID, but I'm not going to tell you what it is"... my paraphrasing pretty much every ID/Creationist I have asked for evidence of their POV for the last 15 years.

They have no evidence, all they have are the limits of our current knowledge of biology and evolution. Now, what I think that is really funny is that the entire premise behind ID rests in the assumption that apparent design implies the existence of a designer and that immediately generates the question of who designed the designer, but that they do not address.

The whole thing about "irreducible complexity" simply makes no sense to me either. Today, proteins of the eye are irreducibly complex. A few hundred years ago, everyone thought that spermatozoa were "miniature men" and that was their "irreducible complexity":

Not to mention that there are about 100 million different ways in which you can get something to look "irreducibly complex":

[youtube]K_HVrjKcvrU[/youtube]

 

[Blackwater Babe]

I guess he thought we'd forgotten and hoped no one would bring it up again?

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Is macro-science just as accurate as micro-science?

Is 0 deg C louder than 32 deg F?

 

[idscience]

edited

 

[KhaosTheory]

Sigh... IDscience... Can you tell me again what is micro and macro evolution? I've never heard these "scientific" terms until I started talking to creationists.

You think there is a hard line between macro and micro evolution right? You are asserting that organisms can ONLY evolve to a certain point right?

What is that point? Can you please show me where exactly this line between micro and macro evolution is?

You say it's at the species level? Well that can't be right because lions and tigers can still mate.

Is it at the genus level? Well that can't be right because dolphins and killer whales can still mate.

Is it at the family level? How far back is this imaginary line of yours that CLEARLY says that evolution can NOT occur beyond this line?

You don't deny that lions and tigers shared a common ancestor right? Well to what point will you accept common ancestry? Because for every line you draw, I will show you an example of why that line is NOT definite.

There's simply no where on the phylogenetic tree where one thing isn't directly related to another thing. So please show me where this line of yours is!

 

[Blayz]

OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE is the war cry of evolution.

We have a war cry? Sweet!

How can anyone disagree with the whole of the scientific community on this issue.

Well, they could post incoherent rambling rants on their unread-by-anyone-else website, then repost them here. Not a great method, but better than none. Maybe.

Evolution is as much as a fact as gravity, as sure as the son rising in the morning and setting in the evening. So what is the deal?

It disagrees with your interpretation of your holy book.

Are you just stupid, or blind? Because that is what someone has to be to oppose the mountain of evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt evolution is, has, and does occur all over the earth today.

You could add deluded,willfully ignorant, and so arrogant that you believe your interpretation of a holy book to be the only true one (tm), to the list.

This is part of the new "framing" campaign launched by the evolution lobby.

First a war cry and now a lobby? my oh my. Who knew?

On an earlier blog

That noone reads, hence the repost here....

I went over "framing" and how the scientific community needs to change the course of dialog with the public.

Because IDScience has extensive experience in science communication. Otherwise it would just be the uninformed opinion of some lay person.

Well, it is hard to say but most evolutionists are talking about the fact of change in nature.

Yeah, got any evidence to back up what you reckon most of us are talking about?

But, before I get into that let's talk about the catch all word "EVOLUTION". What does that mean?

Hows about we ask the actual evolutionists that question, rather than some layperson?

For example, drug resistant bacteria. The resistance is due to mutations. Most often, this is due to a loss of information, something breaking, that enables the bacteria to survive.

Penicillin resistance: acquisition of the B-lactamase.
fluoriqunone resistance: improvements in efflux pumps.

You are not even wrong. Which is hardly surprising, since you know nothing about biology.

Those kins of changes are called micro-evolution.

...but only by people who do not know what they are talking about.

The evolution party (I say that because has become so political, like the green party)

Wow. war cry, lobby and now our own party. Fantastic. Will we be emperors of the world by the end of this post? Can't wait to find out.

Now let's get into macro-evolution.

Another misappropriated term that no evolutionists ever actually use.

This is micro's much much older, big brother. Without getting into the "definition" just yet

Why the quotes around definition? is a "definition" different from a definition? Are the quotes there because it is a silly term that noone in the field actually uses?

Meh, I have to go. Ironically I have to determine the evolutionary relationships in some novel NGS data. But hey IDscience, you keep making up definitions for words noone in the field ever uses, and keep on complaining about other people's data. Your God forbid you ever produce any of your own.

 

[JoeyArnold]

You aren't allowed to comment.

Is macro-science just as accurate as micro-science?

 

[Blackwater Babe]

So, lots of flaming of evolution, but where is the actual evidence for ID itself? I'll take any?

 

[JoeyArnold]

Evidence starts within us.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Evidence starts within us.

Of course, all this obfuscation and deliberate evasion could just be a sign that you actually have no evidence for your case.

(The oracle-from-the-matrix pseudo-profundity doesn't really come over too well, by the way.)
(originally by Cabal)

 

[JoeyArnold]

Your doubt proves design.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Your doubt proves design.

Well how convenient for you. Now explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please?

 

[JoeyArnold]

Well how convenient for you. Now explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please?

Doubt is an inner struggle.