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

[Damocles]

I'm sorry but I just fail to see your point. What are you talking about?

Let me give you an example.

You have information that people who drink coffee and also drink diet coke like black coffee.

You then state, "All people who like black coffee like diet coke."

Which isn't true.

In the group of people who drink both coffee and diet coke they generally drink black coffee, but all people who drink black coffee do not in fact like diet coke.

In your post you had the following information:

People who think ID is science tend to "stop science".

You said, People who believe there is an Intelligent designer are "science stoppers" because they say... "Jeebus did it!"

When, in fact, there are some (even Darwin) who believe in an Intelligent Designer that do not say that and are in the Life Sciences. It becomes a logical fallacy when you over generalize. The reality is only a subset of the group of people who believe in an Intelligent Designer (that of people who claim ID is a scientific theory) have this problem.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Let me give you an example.

You have information that people who drink coffee and also drink diet coke like black coffee.

You then state, "All people who like black coffee like diet coke."

Which isn't true.

In the group of people who drink both coffee and diet coke they generally drink black coffee, but all people who drink black coffee do not in fact like diet coke.

In your post you had the following information:

People who think ID is science tend to "stop science".

You said, People who believe there is an Intelligent designer are "science stoppers" because they say... "Jeebus did it!"

When, in fact, there are some (even Darwin) who believe in an Intelligent Designer that do not say that and are in the Life Sciences. It becomes a logical fallacy when you over generalize. The reality is only a subset of the group of people who believe in an Intelligent Designer (that of people who claim ID is a scientific theory) have this problem.

But I never said that. Show me where I said that? I didn't say people who believe in a intelligent designer are sciece stoppers. I said Intelligent Design (i.e. the concept) is a science stopper. The only ones who think I've stated that are you and Good Luck. Sol's understanding of what I stated is exactly what I meant.

 

[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.

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.

But I never said that. Show me where I said that? I didn't say people who believe in a intelligent designer are sciece stoppers. I said Intelligent Design (i.e. the concept) is a science stopper. The only ones who think I've stated that are you and Good Luck. Sol's understanding of what I stated is exactly what I meant.

You simply didn't differentiate, thus the inference was there.

I posted a post that showed one way people like Darwin looked at it, and gave you reason to understand that such a belief in an Intelligent Designer does not make one assume that ID is science. You then kept arguing as if I had said ID was science, I hadn't. Not even once have I said it, or implied it, and in posts where I thought it might be inferred I made it very clear by simply stating it was not a Scientific Theory and that people who think it is are simply misinformed and usually are the ones that will give you your "science stopping" answers.

 

[Good Luck]

No I didn't. I was using a rhetorical device to point out how ID is a science stopper.

If, for example, I am researching the mechanism of speciation and I draw the conclusion "The Intelligent Designer Designed it that way", by drawing this conclusion based on supernatural causation I have stopped scientific progress, on this specific question, because this is not science.

To emphasise my point, let me ask you a question and I desire a specific answer siting specific examples, not generalizations. When an ID supporter claims that speciation is to complex to have evolved by natural selection and therefore this is evidence of design by an Intelligent designer, how have they advanced our scientific knowledge of the mecanisms of speciation?

Your rhetorical device is flawed. You assume that saying "the intelligent designer made it that way" stops further inquiry into the mechanisms of speciation. Your assumption is that the belief of design will yield a dead end conclusion of design. That is not accurate. Good scientists can believe that speciation occurs due to design, even assume such a conclusion, but still want to know HOW the designed mechanism accomplishes its task.

It's like a computer scientist taking apart a highly sophisticated computer virus. The obvious conclusion for "how does the virus do this" is because it was made that way. But we still examine the code to find out the mechanism (code) used by the virus designer.

As for your question, the observation that complexity in living organisms indicates intelligent design is not supposed to answer the question of speciation. More than anything, ID's approach is to consider the question of origin, not mechanisms after origin, with the exception that the mechanisms described in traditional theory do not account for statistical probability of outcome and ID is attempting to do so under they hypothesis that understanding the statistical probabilities of speciation will indicate design as opposed to accumulated random events.

The theory that gravity waves can be induced by quasar effects does nothing to address the mechanism of speciation either. Don't be so narrow minded.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

You simply didn't differentiate, thus the inference was there.

I posted a post that showed one way people like Darwin looked at it, and gave you reason to understand that such a belief in an Intelligent Designer does not make one assume that ID is science. You then kept arguing as if I had said ID was science, I hadn't. Not even once have I said it, or implied it, and in posts where I thought it might be inferred I made it very clear by simply stating it was not a Scientific Theory and that people who think it is are simply misinformed and usually are the ones that will give you your "science stopping" answers.

The inference is yours, not mine.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Your rhetorical device is flawed. You assume that saying "the intelligent designer made it that way" stops further inquiry into the mechanisms of speciation. Your assumption is that the belief of design will yield a dead end conclusion of design. That is not accurate. Good scientists can believe that speciation occurs due to design, even assume such a conclusion, but still want to know HOW the designed mechanism accomplishes its task.

It's like a computer scientist taking apart a highly sophisticated computer virus. The obvious conclusion for "how does the virus do this" is because it was made that way. But we still examine the code to find out the mechanism (code) used by the virus designer.

As for your question, the observation that complexity in living organisms indicates intelligent design is not supposed to answer the question of speciation. More than anything, ID's approach is to consider the question of origin, not mechanisms after origin, with the exception that the mechanisms described in traditional theory do not account for statistical probability of outcome and ID is attempting to do so under they hypothesis that understanding the statistical probabilities of speciation will indicate design as opposed to accumulated random events.

The theory that gravity waves can be induced by quasar effects does nothing to address the mechanism of speciation either. Don't be so narrow minded.

You're missing the point here. It does stop further inquirey if that is the conclusion which is drawn.

Please don't go into a discusion on this topic about the statistical probability of outcome. I don't need another mole to wack. I've heard this argument long before ID came around. It's an old creationist argument and it's very easy to debunk.

You're point on gravity and quasars is a strawman. They were never intended to model biological speciation and so that would be a misrepresentation. So to sum it up. I'm not being close minded. I'm practicing science by the principles and ground rules of science why others are demonstrating that either they don't understand these rules or, as in the case of Dixie, are trying to change these rules to suite their views.