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

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Whack a Mole, Whack a Mole, Whack a Mole. Dixie you just plain don't know what you're talking about. Go study some biology and then come back and lecture to me when you actually know something new.

Okay... So, Mr. Fake Biologist can't articulate how non-organic matter generated organic matter. Seems like a self-respecting biologist would have at least a theory on this, but no. Apparently you cling to the "just because" explanation on that?

 

[Timshel]

Logic isn't your strong point, is it? If the possibility exists to prove something, the possibility has to exist to disprove it as well. Otherwise, it can neither be proved or disproved. Theories all fall in this category, it's what makes them theory.

No, it does not. I have already given you an example and you keep restating this assertion without any support. You are a broken record.

Tell us, how could one falsify ID. Answer or stfu.

ID can't be proven true or false, ET can't be proven true or false,

Already gave an example of how one might prove ID true. I can think of no possible way to falsify it. Apparently, neither can you since I have asked several times and you have failed to provide an example.

I also gave multiple examples of how one could disprove evolution. Evolution is certainly falsifiable.

Unless you can move this forward. All you have done so far is spin and evade.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Stringy, it's simple logic man! A glass can not be half full without being half empty. One team can't win the Super Bowl without the other team losing. Nothing can be PROVEN true or false, if possibility of the other condition exists. If you PROVE something true, you have also proven there is no possibility for it to be false. If you PROVE something false, you have also proven it is not true.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Already gave an example of how one might prove ID true.

And no you didn't give any example of how one might do this, you suggested the source of intelligence reveal itself, which is out of the hands of the one making the argument.

ET is a theory of how things changed over time, it doesn't deal with origin of life. If you have a theory on that, please show us how it has been "falsified" or "tested" and what were the results? As of yet, none of you have really articulated a thought on this, you just keep running back to ET, as if that theory somehow pertains to origin.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Okay... So, Mr. Fake Biologist can't articulate how non-organic matter generated organic matter. Seems like a self-respecting biologist would have at least a theory on this, but no. Apparently you cling to the "just because" explanation on that?

It's called SP4 hybridization of carbon atoms and you still don't know what you're talking about as this is a strawman and is irrelevant to the topic of biological evolution.

Whack a Mole, Whack a Mole, Whack a Mole....

 

[Mott the Hoople]

No, it does not. I have already given you an example and you keep restating this assertion without any support. You are a broken record.

Tell us, how could one falsify ID. Answer or stfu.



Already gave an example of how one might prove ID true. I can think of no possible way to falsify it. Apparently, neither can you since I have asked several times and you have failed to provide an example.

I also gave multiple examples of how one could disprove evolution. Evolution is certainly falsifiable.

Unless you can move this forward. All you have done so far is spin and evade.

You're wasting your time RS. I've argued this with Dixie on more than on occasion and it just results in another round of "Whack a Mole".

The fact is, as and others have pointed out previously, is that since ID supporters do not identify who or what this intelligent designer is, they make it impossible to, in principle, falsify Intelligent Design thus placing it outside the framework and ground rules of science.

 

[Cancel3]

Dixie, I have a question concerning the ID theory.

How does one research the identity of the intelligence that designed all this? Is there a scientific search going on to quantify this "intelligent designer"?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, I have a question concerning the ID theory.

How does one research the identity of the intelligence that designed all this? Is there a scientific search going on to quantify this "intelligent designer"?

Many people claim to have found the identity of the designer, have you been to a church lately? As a spiritualist, I know for a fact there is something more profound than humans, I've witnessed it's power. Could this be the source?

Identity is not a prerequisite for theorizing intelligence was involved in design. If the source could be identified, it would no longer be a theory, it would be a proven fact. Why do you continue to insist ID be proven, to be considered a theory?

It seems there is a lot science can't quantify, yet it doesn't seem to stop science from forming theories. Have you identified the source of black holes? Still, you wouldn't argue black holes don't exist, or that they are not possible, you've seen them, you've observed and witnessed them, and you already know they exist. Do you have a scientific explanation for them?

 

[Bonestorm]

Many people claim to have found the identity of the designer, have you been to a church lately? As a spiritualist, I know for a fact there is something more profound than humans, I've witnessed it's power. Could this be the source?

Identity is not a prerequisite for theorizing intelligence was involved in design. If the source could be identified, it would no longer be a theory, it would be a proven fact. Why do you continue to insist ID be proven, to be considered a theory?

It seems there is a lot science can't quantify, yet it doesn't seem to stop science from forming theories. Have you identified the source of black holes? Still, you wouldn't argue black holes don't exist, or that they are not possible, you've seen them, you've observed and witnessed them, and you already know they exist. Do you have a scientific explanation for them?

Hey, that's the tag line at my local church!

Jesus Christ - More Profound Than Humans

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Dixie, I have a question concerning the ID theory.

How does one research the identity of the intelligence that designed all this? Is there a scientific search going on to quantify this "intelligent designer"?

Conversely, is their any research being done to qualify who this "intelligent designer is"?

The answer to both questions of course is "No, there is none."

Dixies answer to your question will be to change the definition of science to meet his point of view.

 

[Cancel3]

Many people claim to have found the identity of the designer, have you been to a church lately? As a spiritualist, I know for a fact there is something more profound than humans, I've witnessed it's power. Could this be the source?

Identity is not a prerequisite for theorizing intelligence was involved in design. If the source could be identified, it would no longer be a theory, it would be a proven fact. Why do you continue to insist ID be proven, to be considered a theory?

It seems there is a lot science can't quantify, yet it doesn't seem to stop science from forming theories. Have you identified the source of black holes? Still, you wouldn't argue black holes don't exist, or that they are not possible, you've seen them, you've observed and witnessed them, and you already know they exist. Do you have a scientific explanation for them?

But Dixie, aren't you the one that said "I proposed that the ID argument doesn't necessarily or automatically mean "religious God" was the Intelligent Designer". Or even, "You continue to make the erroneous connection between ID and Religion. I'm sorry, but this is just an invalid assumption on your part".

And when I ask about anyone doing research to quantify this "intelligent designer", you ask me if I have been to church lately and you tell me about your own spirituality and this power you have witnessed.



The biggest problem I have with ID, in addition to it being unscientific, is that once you declare it is God who did the designing, the research into it stops. No one is researching God (other than in a completely spiritual manner).

 

[Topspin]

this shit is comically funny. I'd like to personally thank Dixie for showing how republicans reject science on every turn. Usually for a comic book.
Thanks Redneck

 

[Mott the Hoople]

But Dixie, aren't you the one that said "I proposed that the ID argument doesn't necessarily or automatically mean "religious God" was the Intelligent Designer". Or even, "You continue to make the erroneous connection between ID and Religion. I'm sorry, but this is just an invalid assumption on your part".

And when I ask about anyone doing research to quantify this "intelligent designer", you ask me if I have been to church lately and you tell me about your own spirituality and this power you have witnessed.



The biggest problem I have with ID, in addition to it being unscientific, is that once you declare it is God who did the designing, the research into it stops. No one is researching God (other than in a completely spiritual manner).

Exactly, as Ken Miller states, It's a science stopper.

Why does genetic mutation occur during meiotic crossover? The intelligent designer designed it that way.

Why does compliment mediate antigen/antibody responses? The intelligent designer designed it that way.

Why are all physiological closed loop negative feedback homeostatic control mechanisms hysterisis loops? The intelligent designer designed it that way.

Why do all eukaryotes have bilaminar phospholipid plasma lemmas? The intelligent designer designed it that way.

Why is mitochondrial DNA always inherited from the mother? The intelligent designer designed it that way.

Why does oxidative phosphorilization always preceed the electron transfer process in the citric acid cycle of aerobic metabolism? The intelligent designer designed it that way.

These are just a few examples why ID is wholly worthless as science.

 

[Damocles]

Exactly, as Ken Miller states, It's a science stopper.

Why does genetic mutation occur during meiotic crossover? The intelligent designer designed it that way.

Here is how a scientists who was an ID'r might ask the question if he was being uber-literal and not writing a paper...

"What tool did the Intelligent Designer use to make genetic mutation occur during meiotic crossover?"

Why does compliment mediate antigen/antibody responses? The intelligent designer designed it that way.

"What did the Intelligent Designer use to make compliment mediate antigen/antibody responses?"

Then the scientist would use the exact same tests to see if he could figure out why it happened. When he wrote his paper it would be indistinguishable from the paper of somebody who had no "illusions" of an Intelligent Design.

I'd go on, but what would be the point? The attempt to say, "If you believe in religion then you can't use science" wouldn't be as fun without the black/white stereotyping that takes place in the anti-religionist.

It's only a "science stopper" to the incurious. Those would not be in science anyway, aren't going to read the paper, and may even believe that the scientist was "trying to prove that God doesn't exist" all while the scientist would be standing in awe, once he figured it out, at the astounding Creation of the Intelligent Designer...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

But Dixie, aren't you the one that said "I proposed that the ID argument doesn't necessarily or automatically mean "religious God" was the Intelligent Designer". Or even, "You continue to make the erroneous connection between ID and Religion. I'm sorry, but this is just an invalid assumption on your part".

And when I ask about anyone doing research to quantify this "intelligent designer", you ask me if I have been to church lately and you tell me about your own spirituality and this power you have witnessed.



The biggest problem I have with ID, in addition to it being unscientific, is that once you declare it is God who did the designing, the research into it stops. No one is researching God (other than in a completely spiritual manner).

Solitary, you asked me a stupid question and I gave you a stupid answer. I don't know what the source of intelligence is, but I don't have to know the identity of the source to know something was designed. My car was obviously designed, my home was obviously designed, my clothes were obviously designed, but I have no clue by whom. I don't need to know who designed them to conclude they are the product of intelligent design. So your question is irrelevant, and has absolutely nothing to do with the argument.

Now that I have answered your irrelevant question, let me ask you a relevant one. If science doesn't know all the answers, how can it possibly conclude there wasn't an intelligent designer? Seems to me, if that possibility exists, the theory is validated. We can't say intelligent design is scientifically impossible, because science is incomplete, we don't know everything. Perhaps there is a scientific explanation for intelligent design... but will you ever find that if you don't look?

 

[Cancel3]

Solitary, you asked me a stupid question and I gave you a stupid answer. I don't know what the source of intelligence is, but I don't have to know the identity of the source to know something was designed. My car was obviously designed, my home was obviously designed, my clothes were obviously designed, but I have no clue by whom. I don't need to know who designed them to conclude they are the product of intelligent design. So your question is irrelevant, and has absolutely nothing to do with the argument.

Now that I have answered your irrelevant question, let me ask you a relevant one. If science doesn't know all the answers, how can it possibly conclude there wasn't an intelligent designer? Seems to me, if that possibility exists, the theory is validated. We can't say intelligent design is scientifically impossible, because science is incomplete, we don't know everything. Perhaps there is a scientific explanation for intelligent design... but will you ever find that if you don't look?

And yet, ID scientists simple point to vague "clues" and claim it means everything was designed, and therefore there is no more investigation. Once it is credited to a "Great Creator" the ID "scientists" stop researching and simply......what was it you said?...."scientist would be standing in awe".

lol

 

[Damocles]

And yet, ID scientists simple point to vague "clues" and claim it means everything was designed, and therefore there is no more investigation. Once it is credited to a "Great Creator" the ID "scientists" stop researching and simply......what was it you said?...."scientist would be standing in awe".

lol

That is what I said, not Dix. The reality is there are very many very real scientists that believe there is an Intelligent Designer and also believe in Evolution, etc.

Finding out "how He did it" is an incentive to people who are like that. Pretending that all of them are the ones you say try to "stop science" is preposterous stereotyping based on your own skewed opinion of people who believe in something that you do not. Since you think that all people who believe in something you do not are less intelligent you caricature them in your mind into stupid and incurious people without capacity to even understand the basic precepts of science.

You would be wrong. Even if you do know what lol means.

 

[Timshel]

That is what I said, not Dix. The reality is there are very many very real scientists that believe there is an Intelligent Designer and also believe in Evolution, etc.

Not in life sciences.

 

[Damocles]

Not in life sciences.

BS, Darwin himself was one. He even said how awesome it was that God could create such a system.

It's just silly to pretend that all scientists that believe in a God are the people who try to get Intelligent Design into science class.

 

[ib1yysguy]

BS, Darwin himself was one. He even said how awesome it was that God could create such a system.

It's just silly to pretend that all scientists that believe in a God are the people who try to get Intelligent Design into science class.

There's a significant difference between claiming what ID does - that evolution can't work because systems are too complex to evolve gradually - and saying what Darwin did about God creating a universe in which evolution could take place.