Prove it or remove it challenge

[Subduction Zone]

Considering he testified against ID, it's safe to say that he isn't pro-ID



Nobody here claimed that he was. I'm well aware that he's a Christian. So what? Atheism has nothing to do with science.

Creationist always complain about "atheistic science" as if there was some other form of science. Strangely enough they don't complain how the work on gravity is all "atheistic" or that all of the work on electronics is "atheistic". EE's do not pray to St. Eligius when starting a new project. For some strange reason they pick on evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nice citation! Seriously that was funny! They kicked out Myers and let Dawkins walk in.

Oh my goodness!!

Amazing hypocrisy and incompetence. How do you recognize PZ and not recognize Dawkins?

But thanks for checking out the link.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Amazing hypocrisy and incompetence. How do you recognize PZ and not recognize Dawkins?

But thanks for checking out the link.

Dawkins must have had his white cowboy hat on. That would fool anybody ha ha ha!

Seriously Dawkins can be a jerk, and comically so more recently. PZ Meyers is such a weasel he's alienated most of his fellow atheists. I'm not surprised they barred his attendance.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Creationist always complain about "atheistic science" as if there was some other form of science.

I wonder how many creationists here got a vaccination for H1N1....or any other flu vaccination for that matter. They have no problem with science unless they think it threatens their beliefs.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Oh look, something else you're just objectively wrong about. The term "monotonous" is not just applicable, it wouldn't surprise me if it was invented to describe Stein's drawling tones. This is less "finding Pixels hilarious" (which is still horribly wrong, just for a very different reason) and more "finding a reading of the Encyclopedia Brittanica by a robot hilarious".

Ha ha good one!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dawkins must have had his white cowboy hat on. That would fool anybody ha ha ha!

Seriously Dawkins can be a jerk, and comically so more recently. PZ Meyers is such a weasel he's alienated most of his fellow atheists. I'm not surprised they barred his attendance.

Meyers is far from perfect himself. He bought into the "Atheism Plus" nonsense, sadly he began to treat it as a religion. He had a forum of some sort where if you disagreed with Atheism Plus you were rather quickly banned. So yes, there are hypocritical atheists too. None of us are perfect (except for me ).

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I haven't been keeping up with this thread. Is the OP satisfied yet or is he still demanding that evolution be removed from Australian schools?

 

[The Cadet]

Ha ha good one!

Any response to the substantial parts of my post, or do you consider the throwaway joke the only thing worth responding to?

 

[Nithavela]

I haven't been keeping up with this thread. Is the OP satisfied yet or is he still demanding that evolution be removed from Australian schools?

OP has left the thread a while ago and is now active in a new one concerning the fossile record.

It ain't pretty.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/fossil-record-observation.7933537/

 

[DogmaHunter]

Okay. Irreducible complexity is not a failed argument, and there are quite a few examples at this point.

IC is literally an argument from ignorance / incredulity.

It literally consists of "I don't understand how it became complex, therefor I don't believe that it became complex".

 

[DogmaHunter]

Your entire argument is from ignorance. You acknowledge that in your post #687, but more on that in a moment.

Michael Behe is a true stud. Talk about a guy who can stand up and take a punch. His observations on the bacteria flagellum are not busted, but rather alive and doing well. And yes, the list of irreducible structures and processes grows daily.

Are we talking about the same Behe here? The one that had to admit in the Dover trial that, under his definition of "science" that allows for "intelligent design", Astrology is also "science"?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct.


THAT Behe?
Yea.... what a "stud" indeed....

 

[Paterfamilia]

IC is literally an argument from ignorance / incredulity.

It literally consists of "I don't understand how it became complex, therefor I don't believe that it became complex".

Yeah you might want to look at it again dude. You look pretty silly right now.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Would anyone please tell us what they think ID theory is?

It's religious creationism dishonestly disguised in a lab coat.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Creation science is not the same thing as ID.

"cdesign proponentsists" disagree.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cdesign_proponentsists

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yeah you might want to look at it again dude. You look pretty silly right now.

No, I'm pretty much spot on.

You are welcome to show me wrong if you think I am.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"cdesign proponentsists" disagree.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cdesign_proponentsists

That find was one of the keys to the Dover trial. That was one of the few times he showed any emotion at all, according to Eugenie Scott. His eyebrows rose a bit when that came out. I will see if I can find a YouTube video on it.

 

[Paterfamilia]

No, I'm pretty much spot on.

You are welcome to show me wrong if you think I am.

Ha ha here we go again - will you admit it when I do?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ha ha here we go again - will you admit it when I do?

If you actually succeed: happily.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was very slightly wrong in my description of what the judge did according to Eugenie Scott. This video goes over how the Discovery Institute was outed as a creationist organization:

She begins to go over the books around the thirteenth or fourteenth minute it builds slowly and the punch line is delivered at 21:00.

 

[Paterfamilia]

If you actually succeed: happily.

Okay. Respect if you do.

There is nothing special about complexity. Lots of things are complex. You can take a hundred dice and dump them one by one out of a bag, and you have 10 very complex strings of numbers. Chances are you could never pull that exact combination again.

But let's say you dump them out, one by one, and it just so happens that each ten number string is the phone number to one of your 10 children. In descending order, oldest to youngest. Wouldn't that be remarkable?

Would you say that there is a difference in the two groups of numbers? One is complex, but random. The other is complex and specified.

Now let's say that you did not pull the numbers out of the bag, but you simply came home from work, and the two groups were on your dining table.

One group is ten sets of ten random numbers.

The other is ten phone numbers. Your 10 kids phone numbers, in descending order.

Which group of numbers communicates information?

Which group of numbers would suggest that an intelligent agent had some input to the arrangement of the numbers?

Would you agree, that according to your uniform and repeated experience, if you saw ten phone numbers of your ten children in descending order that you would come to the conclusion that an intelligent agent had some causal input as to the sequence of the arrangement of the ten strings of numbers?

Your statement that ID is about ignorance of the cause of complexity is incorrect sir.