If evolution is teh realz then why is not it happeningg nows?

[Mott the Hoople]

Biologic design is the the topic under discussion. As to your assertion about Dembski, and ID in genderal you need to catch up.

The best evolutionary biologists think about intelligent design

It is evident by the fact that Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Ken Miller, Sean Carroll, and Michael Ruse have written book reviews of Michael Behe’s book, The Edge of Evolution, that the best evolutionary biologists think about intelligent design. That only makes sense because Darwin himself wrote much about intelligent design and devoted an entire book, The Origin of Species, in a failed attempt to refute intelligent design.

We see peer reviewed literature by Zuckerkandl, Ayala, Koonin, and others referencing intelligent design. Here is a peer-reviewed article by 3 scientists from MIT in the journal of Molecular Systems Biology: The intelligent design of evolution where the authors assert:

The debate between intelligent design and evolution in education may still rage in school boards and classrooms, but intelligent design is making headway in the laboratory…
….
Intelligent design, however, may be here to stay.

The very nature of scientific advances in the study of molecular origins keeps moving towards intelligent design, not away from it.

You need to catch up dude. Everyone of those scientist you mentioned were scathingly critical of Behe's latest book. All the references by those scientist in the literature were debunking ID. You really ought to read what you reference.

There is no legitimate research or experimentation on ID because it's a joke.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Do you understand the language? Falsifiable does not mean it can be proven true. It means that it is conceivable that one could prove it false. There is no way to prove ID false because it rests on supernatural horseshit.

I've tried using the phrase "In principle must be falsifiable" but the bone heads don't even get that.

 

[Canceled2]

You need to catch up dude. Everyone of those scientist you mentioned were scathingly critical of Behe's latest book. All the references by those scientist in the literature were debunking ID. You really ought to read what you reference.

There is no legitimate research or experimentation on ID because it's a joke.

What silliness, of course they have been scathingly critical! The quote is that "they think about intelligent design". In other words, it requires them to seriously address the very notion of it. So much so, that they are forced to grapple with such things as irreducible complexity. And, though you, as they, like to claim they have debunked ID, it just ain't so Joe.

What old fart Darwinian's are being forced to do is defend their dying dinosaur of a theory. Many scientists entering into fields of biology, astronomy, and even archeology are giving a listen to the Behe's and Dembski's and their study into intelligent design. The face of Origin's science is changing no matter how people like you claim otherwise.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Ooh God that's so ignorant.

 

[Canceled2]

Yea? You'd like to back that up? I bet I can find more examples of peer reviewed published literature on applied evolutionary theory in the last 6 months then you can find for either creationism or ID in total.

I mean what do you know about Biology? Where did you do you undergraduate studies in Biology? Where did you do your graduate studies in Biology? What was your core area of research? What makes you an expert on this subject?

To be honest, and I don't mean this as a personal attack, but based on your postings I find you profoundly ignorant on the subject of Darwinian Evolution.

Of course you find me "profoundly ignorant" what else can a Darwinain zealot do but call names and attack "intelligence"? It's what even the trained and educated scientists who challenge Darwinian evolution are treated to by their peers.

Some scientific and philosophic critiques of Darwinian Evolutionary Theory

 

[ib1yysguy]

You mentioned Ken Miller. He's Miller ripping apart ID.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Ice, start watching around 39:40. They totally destroyed the bacterial flagellum argument at trial by showing how it probably evolved -- in other words, why it isn't irreducibly complex. Remember that this is the standard YOU cited as being capable of disproving ID. It has been done.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Ice, start watching around 39:40. They totally destroyed the bacterial flagellum argument at trial by showing how it probably evolved -- in other words, why it isn't irreducibly complex. Remember that this is the standard YOU cited as being capable of disproving ID. It has been done.

LOL... Well, I have a degree in Psychology, and I believe you PROBABLY are mentally retarded and need to be institutionalized... so we can call the loony bin and get them to send over the padded truck for you, since this "totally destroys" anything you may have to say in your defense.


Nothing I see there, "disproves" the possibility of Intelligent Design. You continue to ignorantly try to assert that, but it's just not the case.

 

[Timshel]

LMAO...

DIXIE: "Falsifiable means testable!"
STRINGY: "NO IT DOESN'T, IT MEANS TESTABLE!"

No retard, I said it means "able to be proven false" and therefore it is testable. Falsifiable implies testable. But testable does not necessarily imply falsifiable.

As Tonya's source clearly stated one could show design is not necessary for bacterial flagellum (Behe's design detection would then fail the test) without falsifying ID.

Math, vocabulary, science and simple logic, is there any area of knowledge where you have not shown yourself to be ignorant.

 

[Timshel]

What silliness, of course they have been scathingly critical! The quote is that "they think about intelligent design". In other words, it requires them to seriously address the very notion of it. So much so, that they are forced to grapple with such things as irreducible complexity. And, though you, as they, like to claim they have debunked ID, it just ain't so Joe.

So what? I occasionally pickup a copy of Skeptic magazine or the Skeptical Inquirer. Scientist make a frequent target of ID in these mags, along with psychics, faith healers, fad diets, the awful science reporting of the press etc.. They are not grappling with these matters. They kick em around for sport.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

RS pwning once again.

(For Dix)

 

[Canceled2]

"They are not grappling with these matters. They kick em around for sport."

No they don't.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No retard, I said it means "able to be proven false" and therefore it is testable. Falsifiable implies testable. But testable does not necessarily imply falsifiable.

As Tonya's source clearly stated one could show design is not necessary for bacterial flagellum (Behe's design detection would then fail the test) without falsifying ID.

Math, vocabulary, science and simple logic, is there any area of knowledge where you have not shown yourself to be ignorant.

Here is what I said:
Dixie: According to the dictionary, falsifiable means "testable" and cross-species evolution is not.

Here is what you said:
No, falsifiable means
Fal´si`fi`a`ble
a. 1. Capable of being falsified, counterfeited, or corrupted.
2. able to be proven false, and therefore testable;

Furthermore if something is "falsifiable" it simply must be "testable" as well. If something is capable of being proven "false" then it is also capable of being proven "true" as well. If you are incapable of proving something false, you can't definitively claim it to be "true" and if you are incapable of proving something true, you can't definitively claim it to be "false." Science, does not make conclusions or "prove" things true or false.

Stringy, I think it is YOU who needs to learn vocabulary, science and simple logic.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Here is what I said:
Dixie: According to the dictionary, falsifiable means "testable" and cross-species evolution is not.

Here is what you said:
No, falsifiable means
Fal´si`fi`a`ble
a. 1. Capable of being falsified, counterfeited, or corrupted.
2. able to be proven false, and therefore testable;

Fuck the dictionary. The dictionary is supposed to provide a summary, not an exact meaning of the word. It's a vast oversimplification to use the dictionary definition to say that there's no other meaning to the word than your vast oversimplification.

FACT: "falsifiable" means "able to be disproven" AND testable, not JUST testable.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

This is like when I was arguing with desh about democracy.

I said "a more accurate definition of democracy would be rule by the majority, rather than rule by the people, since many of the people will disagree and therefore it's impossible to take them as a collective".

And she pulled out the dictionary where it said "rule by the people" and refused to say anything else in the debate afterwards. Seriously, using a dictionary to "prove" an encyclopedic will just make you look idiotic.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So what? I occasionally pickup a copy of Skeptic magazine or the Skeptical Inquirer. Scientist make a frequent target of ID in these mags, along with psychics, faith healers, fad diets, the awful science reporting of the press etc.. They are not grappling with these matters. They kick em around for sport.

They do as you, Mott, and ib1 have done here... they take things completely out of context, draw inference which isn't there, assume things that are untrue and invalid, and proclaim that because their brains are superior, something is "proven" false and refuted, when it isn't!

1. The Theory of Evolution does not deal with Origin of Life.
2. There is no scientific evidence to support cross-species evolution.
3. Intelligent Design Theory is as valid as any other theory regarding Origin of Life.
4. Intelligent design does not necessarily indicate a Deity or God.
5. No theory regarding Origin of Life has been "proven" true or "proven" false.
6. It is virtually impossible to attribute Origin of Life to random chance.

These are all facts you can jump up and down and scream about, try to pretend they are not real, try to refute them or insult me, set your hair on fire about... but they are facts which exist, and must be faced. When you guys are ready to face them, perhaps we can have a reasonable debate on the matter, but until then, you are wasting your time.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Fuck the dictionary. The dictionary is supposed to provide a summary, not an exact meaning of the word. It's a vast oversimplification to use the dictionary definition to say that there's no other meaning to the word than your vast oversimplification.

FACT: "falsifiable" means "able to be disproven" AND testable, not JUST testable.

LMAO... Fuck the dictionary? HE USED THE FUCKING DICTIONARY TO MAKE HIS POINT! IDIOT!

 

[Timshel]

Furthermore if something is "falsifiable" it simply must be "testable" as well.

THAT'S WHAT I SAID! Fuck, you are dense.

If something is capable of being proven "false" then it is also capable of being proven "true" as well.

Not at all. I can imagine how it would be possible to conclusively prove ID. The intelligence could make it self known and demonstrate its powers while we thoroughly observe it. Proving it false is not possible because the designer is defined as being beyond our observational capacity.

Tell me, how can it be proven false?

 

[Timshel]

LMAO... Fuck the dictionary? HE USED THE FUCKING DICTIONARY TO MAKE HIS POINT! IDIOT!

Yeah and the dictionary says it means "able to be proven false and therefore testable," not JUST testable.

 

[ib1yysguy]

LOL... Well, I have a degree in Psychology, and I believe you PROBABLY are mentally retarded and need to be institutionalized... so we can call the loony bin and get them to send over the padded truck for you, since this "totally destroys" anything you may have to say in your defense.


Nothing I see there, "disproves" the possibility of Intelligent Design. You continue to ignorantly try to assert that, but it's just not the case.

Are you fucking kidding? The fundamental premise of ID is that complex systems are "irreducibly complex," more specifically when you remove one of the elements of a complex system it becomes useless, which means it couldn't have been the result of a gradual process of natural selection and must have been designed. That is totally untrue, and it has been demonstrated as such. You refuse to acknowledge it and you are embarrassing yourself because of it.

The only one on here ignorantly asserting anything is you saying that we're saying ID isn't POSSIBLE. I don't believe anyone has said it's impossible. It is, however, clearly not science.