tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post6740481103977421276..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: An Evolutionist Changes His WaysUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger663125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-26234110733273961142010-07-22T15:06:53.561-07:002010-07-22T15:06:53.561-07:00So, no EF demonstration? Why am I not surprised!
...So, no EF demonstration? Why am I not surprised!<br /><br />10 years people! It's starting secondary school already!CBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12115278693368333238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34075784170580053422010-07-22T08:41:35.697-07:002010-07-22T08:41:35.697-07:00Being honest, so one has never credibly used the E...Being honest, so one has never credibly used the EF despite it being 10 years old. If you want to refute this, link to a mathematically comprehensive example for discussion.Rich Hugheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18037140349297065008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90357982348064636932010-07-22T05:51:21.755-07:002010-07-22T05:51:21.755-07:00OM:
Joe, please provide support for your claim t...OM: <br /><br /><i>Joe, please provide support for your claim to have used the EF</i><br /><br />Joe:<br /><i> <br /><br /></i>CBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12115278693368333238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82109328892418339032010-07-22T05:50:34.574-07:002010-07-22T05:50:34.574-07:00Joe
I told you- just about everyting would- just a...Joe<br /><i>I told you- just about everyting would- just as dawkins said.</i><br /><br />But you can't get specific. Noted. <br /><br /><i>Dawkins said if we are the product of design it would change everything about biology.<br /></i><br />And I'm asking *you* what those changes would be. <br /><i>.There isn't ONE- EVERYTHING changes. </i><br /><br />How convenient. I guess that's better then admitting you can't name a single specific thing that would change. <br /><br /><i>I know for a fact they use the EF or something very similar to it.<br /></i><br /><br />Prove it!<br /><br /><i>It is accepted for personal reasons only- it doesn't have any positive scientific support. </i><br /><br />Presumably those personal reasons have to do with atheism. Odd them how there are plenty of theistic scientists who also accept it. What's their reason? <br /><br /><i>You are also making a claim asshole.</i><br /><br />No, you are making the claim that the flagellum was designed and that design was detected by the EF. Strange then how you cannot point me to the data that supports that claim. <br /><br /><i>Funny that you cannot provide any positive evidence for your claims. </i><br /><br />As discussed, you don't seem to understand the difference between positive and negative evidence and how you cannot prove a negative. <br /><br />The fact is that you can continue to make the claim the flagellum was designed for ever and it won't matter until you provide some evidence to support it. <br /><br /><i>ID stands on its own and I didn't refer to evolution you ignorant freak.</i><br /><br />Odd then how almost every post at UD and TT refers to evolution or what has been discovered about evolution. Nothing at all about positive evidence for ID. <br /><br /><i>They had better use it or something very similar.</i><br /><br />Or what? You'll challenge them to a fight?<br /><br /><i>Otherwise they risk being proven wrong- easily proven wrong.</i><br /><br />Dembski has been proven wrong. Why do you think he's working in some back water bible university instead of heading up the ID research team?<br /><br /><i>Do you think they flip a coin?</i><br /><br />That would be more accurate the using Dembski's EF, of which you still cannot point to a single worked example. <br /><br /><i>No they have to eliminate possible causes and then find the cause- just as the EF does. </i><br /><br />Please demonstrate how you used the EF to determine that<br /><br />A) Lightning is not designed<br />B) The flagellum is designed. <br /><br />You are making those claims. Not me. Until you support them they are just that - claims.CBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12115278693368333238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90052816979458535822010-07-22T05:37:24.510-07:002010-07-22T05:37:24.510-07:00OM:
It always comes back to evolution. Can't I...OM:<br /><i>It always comes back to evolution. Can't ID stand on it's own two feet without constantly refering to evolution?</i><br /><br />ID stands on its own and I didn't refer to evolution you ignorant freak.<br /><br /><b>It has been demonstrated- how do you think scientists determine design from non-design today?</b><br /><br /><i>We know for a fact they don't use the EF.</i><br /><br />They had better use it or something very similar.<br /><br />Otherwise they risk being proven wrong- easily proven wrong.<br /><br />Do you think they flip a coin?<br /><br />No they have to eliminate possible causes and then find the cause- just as the EF does.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31194314146293621482010-07-22T05:34:29.813-07:002010-07-22T05:34:29.813-07:00OM:
It always comes back to evolution. Can't I...OM:<br /><i>It always comes back to evolution. Can't ID stand on it's own two feet without constantly refering to evolution?</i><br /><br />ID is NOT anti-evolution you moron.<br /><br /><i>So, you don't know what would change if ID was accepted. </i><br /><br />I told you- just about everyting would- just as dawkins said.<br /><br />Dawkins said if we are the product of design it would change everything about biology.<br /><br /><b>It would be the difference between investigating a murder and just a dead body. The difference between archaeology and geology.</b><br /><br /><br /><i>It's telling you can't give a specific outcome.</i><br /><br />There isn't ONE- EVERYTHING changes. <br /><br /><b>It has been demonstrated- how do you think scientists determine design from non-design today?</b><br /><br /><i>We know for a fact they don't use the EF.</i><br /><br />I know for a fact they use the EF or something very similar to it.<br /><br /><b>And YOU could even give it a try- heck it could only help you support your position.</b><br /><br /><i>As noted and even accepted by you my position does not need further support to be accepted,</i><br /><br />It is accepted for personal reasons only- it doesn't have any positive scientific support. <br /><br /><b>Pick out any flagellum or other functioning biological system and have at it!</b><br /><br /><i>As the person making the claim the burden is on you to do that.</i><br /><br />You are also making a claim asshole.<br /><br />Funny that you cannot provide any positive evidence for your claims.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86491550149767126322010-07-22T01:04:43.910-07:002010-07-22T01:04:43.910-07:00Joe
According to Richard Dawkins everything change...Joe<br /><i>According to Richard Dawkins everything changes.</i><br /><br />It always comes back to evolution. Can't ID stand on it's own two feet without constantly refering to evolution? I guess not. <br /><br />So, you don't know what would change if ID was accepted. OK, fair enough. I guess you've really thought about your position. <br /><br /><i>It would be the difference between investigating a murder and just a dead body. The difference between archaeology and geology.<br /></i><br /><br />It's telling you can't give a specific outcome. Would we be closer to a cure for cancer if ID was accepted in the mainstream? If so, why?<br /><br />All talk. <br /><br /><i>It has been demonstrated- how do you think scientists determine design from non-design today?</i><br /><br />We know for a fact they don't use the EF. You specifically claimed to have used the EF. Using the EF involves calculating the probabilities involved. <br /><br />You lie when you claim to have used it. <br /><br /><i>And YOU could even give it a try- heck it could only help you support your position.</i><br /><br />As noted and even accepted by you my position does not need further support to be accepted, it already is accepted. <br /><br /><i>Pick out any flagellum or other functioning biological system and have at it!</i><br /><br />As the person making the claim the burden is on you to do that. Aside from anything else ID claims the flagellum was designed, presumably that was determined by using the EF. <br /><br />Odd then how nobody can explain how that was done or provide any details. <br /><br />Very odd indeed.CBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12115278693368333238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8667464912135777572010-07-21T15:21:33.266-07:002010-07-21T15:21:33.266-07:00OM:
Cowards make claims that they then refuse to s...OM:<br /><i>Cowards make claims that they then refuse to support, or set impossible conditions on their support being made available.</i><br /><br /><b>That is EXACTLY what you do!</b><br /><br /><i>Give me an example.</i><br /><br />All of your posts...Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88024149151763107842010-07-21T15:20:19.291-07:002010-07-21T15:20:19.291-07:00OM:
So, what now? What changes?
According to Rich...OM:<br /><i>So, what now? What changes?</i><br /><br />According to Richard Dawkins everything changes.<br /><br />It would be the difference between investigating a murder and just a dead body. The difference between archaeology and geology.<br /><br /><i>Will the EF finally be demonstrated?</i><br /><br />It has been demonstrated- how do you think scientists determine design from non-design today?<br /><br />And YOU could even give it a try- heck it could only help you support your position.<br /><br />Pick out any flagellum or other functioning biological system and have at it!Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60919582159516006312010-07-21T14:51:20.268-07:002010-07-21T14:51:20.268-07:00Joe
That is EXACTLY what you do!
Give me an examp...Joe<br /><i>That is EXACTLY what you do!</i><br /><br />Give me an example.CBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12115278693368333238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-69682012117760413242010-07-21T14:49:24.906-07:002010-07-21T14:49:24.906-07:00Joe
OK you will not produce any positive evidence ...Joe<br /><i>OK you will not produce any positive evidence for your position because you cannot.</i><br /><br />Yes, you are right. Intelligent design is the way forwards and the light. All praise Jesus. <br /><br />So, what now? What changes? Can we expect to see cancer cured? Will the EF finally be demonstrated? What?CBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12115278693368333238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64686221907171483082010-07-21T13:39:36.104-07:002010-07-21T13:39:36.104-07:00Evolution is defined as the change in allele frequ...<b>Evolution is defined as the change in allele frequency over time (within a population).</b><br /><br /><br />OM<br /><i>Which leads to common descent</i><br /><br />Not necessarily.<br /><br />There can be a change in allele frequency without any Universal Common Descent. <br /><br /><b>But please feel free to provide a valid reference taht supports your claims.</b><br /><br /><i>My claim of what?</i><br /><br />The definition of evolution.<br /><br />So being an asshole is what you do.<br /><br />Got it.<br /><br /><i>Cowards make claims that they then refuse to support, or set impossible conditions on their support being made available.</i><br /><br />That is EXACTLY what you do!Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6296307003220303312010-07-21T13:36:15.932-07:002010-07-21T13:36:15.932-07:00Obviously it has as long-time atheist Anthony Flew...<b>Obviously it has as long-time atheist Anthony Flew said ID is based on the scientific data/ evidence.</b><br /><br />OM:<br /><i>In the same way that you claim to have used the EF no doubt.</i><br /><br />Whatever that evotardgasm means.<br /><br />He put it in writing and he was "yelled" at by the maniacal atheistsJoe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24851617482800598252010-07-21T13:34:33.843-07:002010-07-21T13:34:33.843-07:00Don't know- but it is very telling that you ca...<b>Don't know- but it is very telling that you cannot produce any positive evidence for it.</b><br /><br />OM<br /><i>Have a guess.</i><br /><br />OK you will not produce any positive evidence for your position because you cannot.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62019996969617327422010-07-21T13:33:18.940-07:002010-07-21T13:33:18.940-07:00OM:
And yet not one paper in any journal supports ...OM:<br /><i>And yet not one paper in any journal supports the claim that living organisms and their diversity is due to intelligent design.</i><br /><br />And yet not one paper in any journal supports the claim that living organisms and their diversity is due to blind, undirected chemical processes.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32153581421379916912010-07-21T13:32:28.010-07:002010-07-21T13:32:28.010-07:00OM,
You have failed to provide a testable hypothe...OM,<br /><br />You have failed to provide a testable hypothesis for your position.<br /><br />You do not understand how science operates.<br /><br /><i>Shame they've not found the time to publish many scientific papers as they have books. </i><br /><br />YOUR position doesn't have any scientific papers for support!<br /><br /><b>It wasn't empty- it just had the DNA removed.</b><br /><br /><i>What was left then?</i><br /><br />Ribosomes and the cytoplasm.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78973792199529239992010-07-21T13:26:25.062-07:002010-07-21T13:26:25.062-07:00Joe
Don't know- but it is very telling that yo...Joe<br /><i>Don't know- but it is very telling that you cannot produce any positive evidence for it.</i><br /><br />Have a guess. Go on, try.CBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12115278693368333238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33230806340923228042010-07-21T13:25:59.272-07:002010-07-21T13:25:59.272-07:00And yet not one paper in any journal supports the ...And yet not one paper in any journal supports the claim that living organisms and their diversity is due to intelligent design. <br /><br />Go figure.CBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12115278693368333238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39132540635355394112010-07-21T13:25:50.007-07:002010-07-21T13:25:50.007-07:00OM:
Then why is it the default?
Don't know- b...OM:<br /><i>Then why is it the default?</i><br /><br />Don't know- but it is very telling that you cannot produce any positive evidence for it.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33747952489069107832010-07-21T13:24:59.868-07:002010-07-21T13:24:59.868-07:00Joe
Obviously it has as long-time atheist Anthony ...Joe<br /><i>Obviously it has as long-time atheist Anthony Flew said ID is based on the scientific data/ evidence.</i><br /><br />In the same way that you claim to have used the EF no doubt. Just saying something does not make it so.CBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12115278693368333238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37825781121143274732010-07-21T13:24:42.974-07:002010-07-21T13:24:42.974-07:00OM:
The "design inference" does not need...OM:<br /><i>The "design inference" does not need to be refuted because it's never been made.</i><br /><br />Obviously it has as long-time atheist Anthony Flew said ID is based on the scientific data/ evidence.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37940577691082495122010-07-21T13:24:12.565-07:002010-07-21T13:24:12.565-07:00Joe
It needs POSITIVE evidence for it.
It doesn&#...Joe<br /><i>It needs POSITIVE evidence for it.<br /><br />It doesn't have any.</i><br /><br />Then why is it the default? Must be because of all those atheist scientist I guess.CBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12115278693368333238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81984721086046788802010-07-21T13:23:25.915-07:002010-07-21T13:23:25.915-07:00Joe
The specific odering of parts to provide a fun...Joe<br /><i>The specific odering of parts to provide a function that is independent of the function of the parts.</i><br /><br />Now relate that to a specific biological entity please. <br /><br /><i>.Behe, Axe, Minnich and Meyer have written plenty about it.</i><br /><br />Shame they've not found the time to publish many scientific papers as they have books. <br /><br /><i>The evidence is there, it has been presented.</i><br /><br />And no doubt if it were not for the global conspiracy of Darwinism suppressing it, that evidence would have overturned darwinism already. <br /><br /><i>And all YOU have to do is actually support your position to refute ID. </i><br /><br />That's not the way it works. Try to understand the way science works. <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method<br /><br /><i>I have, in my words, on my blog.</i><br /><br />Then why don't you publish a paper? <br /><br /><i>It wasn't empty- it just had the DNA removed.</i><br /><br />What was left then? Please be specific, if you can. Is that where your "program" resides then? <br /><br /><i>And yet not one paper in any journal supports the claim that living organisms and their divesity is due to blind, undirected chemical processes.</i><br /><br />Selection. <br /><br /><i>It must bother you to not be able to make a positive case for your own position...</i><br /><br />I think you need a new bulb in that projector.CBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12115278693368333238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11812538580403500022010-07-21T13:22:46.665-07:002010-07-21T13:22:46.665-07:00OM:
The "design inference" does not need...OM:<br /><i>The "design inference" does not need to be refuted because it's never been made.</i><br /><br />Obviously it has as long-time atheist Anthony Flew said ID is based on the scientific data/ evidence.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-31401758216045430602010-07-21T13:19:46.219-07:002010-07-21T13:19:46.219-07:00OM:
My position is the default.
It needs POSITIVE...OM:<br /><i>My position is the default.</i><br /><br />It needs POSITIVE evidence for it.<br /><br />It doesn't have any.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.com