tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post7394072634947106680..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Genes Have Play, Stop and Pause ButtonsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger160125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74364848363541804032012-02-19T20:36:21.558-08:002012-02-19T20:36:21.558-08:00natschuster
I just said I wasn't judging ...<i>natschuster<br /><br /> I just said I wasn't judging the content. I taught the content. I was rejecting the methodology because I have eyes.</i><br /><br />You're vastly unqualified to make that judgement either. You're a Creationist who lied to and screwed his kids based solely on your religious beliefs. You deserve to be fired.<br /><br />You keep lying and trolling the board for kicks. I'll keep pointing out your dishonest behavior. You and Tedford make perfect examples of the type of dishonest bullcrap science has to put up with from Creationists.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85623821100958047252012-02-19T19:31:07.603-08:002012-02-19T19:31:07.603-08:00Sorry, laughing out loud was me. My daughter forgo...Sorry, laughing out loud was me. My daughter forgot to sign out.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11651231591827467492012-02-19T19:20:27.679-08:002012-02-19T19:20:27.679-08:00I just said I wasn't judging the content. I ta...I just said I wasn't judging the content. I taught the content. I was rejecting the methodology because I have eyes. Adn I was under the impression that you start by responding to my posts on the topic, then I respond on topic, then you start with the name calling. That's when I start baiting you and you bring up things like my teaching. If you woudl limit your responses to the topic, y'know, prove me wrong, then I wouldn't feel the need to bait you. I know I said that I wouldn't respond, but i just can't help it.laugh out loudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10625004850193376526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50763043751864069992012-02-19T18:56:48.691-08:002012-02-19T18:56:48.691-08:00natschuster
I think, since you are not an edu...<i>natschuster<br /><br /> I think, since you are not an educator, you are missing the distinction between methodology and content. </i><br /><br />Since you have no formal scientific training in the subject you're not qualified to judge content. You're a Creationist who lied to and screwed his kids based solely on your religious beliefs. You deserve to be fired.<br /><br />BTW nat, you are the one who keeps knee-jerk responding. I only post to you when it's necessary to point out your lies and trolling, like now.<br /><br />You like to lie and troll the board for kicks. I like to point out your dishonest behavior. To each his own.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41420264195265994802012-02-19T18:31:20.760-08:002012-02-19T18:31:20.760-08:00I think, since you are not an educator, you are mi...I think, since you are not an educator, you are missing the distinction between methodology and content. The content was the assertion that the embryos look alike. The methodology was the use of faked drawings. You don't have to be an embryologist to see that they don't look like photos. You just need eyes. I covered the content. I just didn't use faked drawings, a dishonest methodology. And the fact that the embryos don't look all that much alike, and go through different developemental pathways and such at other stages of development, e.g. blastula, gastrula, is biological fact. No spin, just fact.In fact mammal blastulas are so different they are called blastocists.<br /><br />Now, it occured to me that I am enabling very unhealthy behavior on your part. Your obsession with me is becoming pathological. If no one is fooled by me, then why do you keep responding? My baiting you into responding, is not only immature on my part, but encouraging pathological behavior on your part. So I'm thinking, for your sake, that I will no longer respond, when you get all ad hominum, insulting, etc. I'm concerned.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46965977556367354042012-02-19T16:18:59.886-08:002012-02-19T16:18:59.886-08:00Hawks: Well, you've got to love "argument...Hawks: Well, you've got to love "argument from Bill Gates".<br /><br />Agreed. After all... <br /><br />"The Internet? We are not interested in it" - Bill Gates, 1993<br /><br />"I see little commercial potential for the Internet for at least 10 years" - Bill Gates, 1994<br /><br />"Anybody who thinks a little 9,000-line program that's distributed free and can be cloned by anyone (Java) is going to affect anything we do at Microsoft has his head screwed on wrong." - Bill Gates<br /><br />However, Microsoft's C# was highly influenced by Java.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33597687590667960392012-02-19T11:10:25.464-08:002012-02-19T11:10:25.464-08:00You're twisting the argument. Intelligence tel...<i>You're twisting the argument. Intelligence tells us what intelligence does and does not do. IOW, is it intelligent to write a computer program with a whole bunch of useless code? How do you answer? (But, of course, you'll run away from the question ---in one way or another).</i><br /><br />No, and that was the point of the Dembski quote. Even Dembski agrees that ID doesn't predict what intelligence would do. ID says that given something that is specified and complex (SC), we can conclude that it was intelligently designed. What ID does not say is that given something intelligent, we can expect something SC - for the simple reason that intelligence can easily design things that are neither complex nor specified. It's really simple...<br /><br /><i>And in the very next sentence from the arn page you're quoting, Dembski said:<br /><br />But this represents no concession to Darwinism, for which the minimal predictive power that it has can readily be assimilated to a design-theoretic framework.<br /><br />How about that?</i><br /><br />What about it? It tells you nothing about what ID expects.<br /><br /><br /><i>Did I say anything about ID predicting "junk-DNA"? I said it would assert that "junk-DNA" would turn out to have function. Why? Because that's who intelligent being's design.</i><br /><br />No, ID doesn't tell you to expect that. ID tells you that given something SC, intelligence designed it. It does not say that given intelligence, we expect SC. Simple....<br /><br /><i>And Dembski also said:<br /><br />To be sure, designers, like natural laws, can behave predictably (designers often institute policies that end up being rigidly obeyed).<br /><br />How about that?<br /><br />(And, of course, this is part of the ellipsis in your above quote of Dembski. Isn't that called "quote-mining"?)</i><br /><br />No, it's not quote-mining. It's you failing to understand a very simple concept. What Dembski is saying is that given some sort of <i>specific</i> intelligence, we can make predictions. ID, however, does NOT make any assumptions what-so-ever about the designer. ID, therefore, does not make predictions. Simple...<br /><br /><i>And the genome, per Bill Gates, is a computer program beyond anything human intelligence could design. So we're dealing with a supreme intellect at work.</i><br /><br />Well, you've got to love "argument from Bill Gates".<br /><br /><i>These are common sense arguments.</i><br /><br />It might be common sense to confuse the arguments "A given B" with "B given A". Common sense would then be wrong.Hawkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11246883471860150444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65411552515146092882012-02-19T07:30:12.197-08:002012-02-19T07:30:12.197-08:00natschuster
How did I delete part of the appo...<i>natschuster<br /><br /> How did I delete part of the apporved curriculum?</i><br /><br />You already admitted to skipping it. If you're going to keep lying you need a better memory.<br /><br /><i>I just didn't use the inaccurate drawings? How is including information that is not in the textbooks lying? How is giving them all the information lying?</i><br /><br />When your added "information" is just Creationist BS, it's lying.<br /><br /><i>And, again, the curriculum is written by people who know nothing about anything. They are politicians. </i><br /><br />LOL! I suppose <b>you're</b> a specialist in embryology? Enough so that you can unilaterally declare science textbook material to be fraudulent? You're a real hoot there master baiter.<br /><br />You deserve to be fired and legally restrained from ever teaching children again.<br /><br /><i>And you keep responding, so you obviously are falling for it.</i><br /><br />Pointing out your continued dishonesty and trolling isn't the same as falling for it.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-27959673869138135872012-02-19T07:14:29.604-08:002012-02-19T07:14:29.604-08:00How did I delete part of the apporved curriculum? ...How did I delete part of the apporved curriculum? I just didn't use the inaccurate drawings? How is including information that is not in the textbooks lying? How is giving them all the information lying? And, again, the curriculum is written by people who know nothing about anything. They are politicians. <br /><br />And you keep responding, so you obviously are falling for it.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14406869632876536202012-02-19T06:18:37.811-08:002012-02-19T06:18:37.811-08:00natschuster
I was adding information. Its simple ...<i>natschuster<br /><br />I was adding information. Its simple arithmetic.</i><br /><br />Natschuster arithmetic:<br /><br />1. Screw his kids, unilaterally delete part of their approved science curriculum.<br />2. Lie to them, put in your own dishonest Creationist spin.<br />3. Go online and brag about it like it was something to be proud of.<br /><br />You should be legally barred from ever teaching children again. Misusing the trust of a teacher like that is truly despicable. You deserve to be fired.<br /><br /><i>I must confess I kinda enjoy baiting you. </i><br /><br />I'm sure in your mind you're a master baiter. But reality seems to be you're just mad because no one will fall for your lying and trolling anymore.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18320876500385467692012-02-19T05:47:36.707-08:002012-02-19T05:47:36.707-08:00The real embryos don't look like the drawings....The real embryos don't look like the drawings. <br />That much I know, so they are faked. They are not accurate. When the textbooks used photos instead of drawings, I didn't skip them.In each case, I did say that the scientists do say that since they kinda look alike, it is evidence for evolution. When I told them that they don't look alike at other points in their development I was adding information. Its simple arithmetic.<br /><br />I must confess I kinda enjoy baiting you. I know its immature. But its fun. And, Like I tell my students, "just ignore it, and he'll stop," you could ignore me.<br /><br />But now I'm getting concerned over your obsession. You really need to get a life.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44933863886411323052012-02-18T20:32:00.420-08:002012-02-18T20:32:00.420-08:00natschuster
I only skipped the page that cont...<i>natschuster<br /><br /> I only skipped the page that contained the faked drawings because I don't like to lie to children.</i><br /><br />Except there weren't any "fake" drawings. In your ignorance you removed part of the established lesson plan, something you had neither the training nor authority to do. You didn't add information, you added your own personal Creationist propaganda. You screwed those kids out of part of their science curriculum. You deserved to be fired.<br /><br />You also sure don't have any problems lying to anyone else, like you lied to people on this board when you pretended to be interested in learning. You already flat out admitted you were trolling. I remember it very well, and so do you. So don't act surprised when you get treated like a lying troll.<br /><br /><i>You really have got to get a life. Yoru obsession with me is really unhealthy.</i><br /><br />Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to lie and troll the board. That's slime of your own choosing Bunky.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25737321896396999912012-02-18T19:35:39.060-08:002012-02-18T19:35:39.060-08:00Thorton:
I only skipped the page that contained t...Thorton:<br /><br />I only skipped the page that contained the faked drawings because I don't like to lie to children. I did mention that scientists say that since some embryos look alike at some point in their development, it is considered evidence for evolution. I also mentioned that they don't look alike at other points. The books left that part out. I gave the students all the facts and let them decide for themselves. So I didn't remove anything imformation. Just the opposite, I added information. And the school boards consist almost entirely of political appointee who know nothing about education or the subjects we teach, so I'm not impressed by anything the Board of Ed approves.<br /><br />You really have got to get a life. Yoru obsession with me is really unhealthy.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-29834866646073215792012-02-18T18:49:22.721-08:002012-02-18T18:49:22.721-08:00Scott: Why don't you start out by explaining h...Scott: Why don't you start out by explaining how knowledge is created, then point out how evolutionary theory doesn't fit this explanation. I<br /><br />Lino: I'll leave you to muddle through this.<br /><br />Poor Lino. Apparently, my question is too muddled for you. So, you've run off after failing to even acknowledge the questions I asked you. At all. Period. <br /><br />Or are you afraid to disclose your position as it would open it to criticism it cannot withstand?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75615641657488375622012-02-18T18:34:48.006-08:002012-02-18T18:34:48.006-08:00natschuster
I do have a life outside of blogg...<i>natschuster<br /><br /> I do have a life outside of blogging. Sometimes I don't have time to edit out my typos. When I teach, I'm usually more careful. </i><br /><br />Heh. You mean like the time you took it upon yourself to "edit" and removed material from the school board approved science curriculum because it didn't match your Creationist views. A despicable action that by all rights should have gotten you fired. Yeah, you're one heck of a teacher alright.<br /><br /><i>Any more nits you want to pick?</i><br /><br />Go ahead and keep lying and trolling the board if that's how you get you jollies. Just don't expect any answers to your dishonesty from me.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15612796946648249962012-02-18T18:17:21.829-08:002012-02-18T18:17:21.829-08:00Hmm, I wonder if IDiots are ever going to do their...Hmm, I wonder if IDiots are ever going to do their own science, instead of just trying to find things wrong with science that is done by real scientists? <br /><br />Oh wait, there isn't any science to be done when it comes to intelligent design creation, because it's all based on wacky, antiquated fairy tales.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52376720471768159682012-02-18T17:48:28.810-08:002012-02-18T17:48:28.810-08:00I see that Phil Cunningham (ba77) says that being ...I see that Phil Cunningham (ba77) says that being mean is what got 20+ people banned from UD. Hey Phil, what about joe's meanness, or the meanness of gordon mullings, o'leary, stephenb, uptightbiped, you, and all the other IDiots? After all, you all constantly attack, insult, ridicule, and falsely accuse anyone who doesn't worship you and your imaginary god. <br /><br />Of course you self-righteous, pontificating, sanctimonious god-wannabes don't see that as being mean, do you? You believe that you're authorized by your imaginary god to be as malicious and vicious as you want to be, right?<br /><br />You no doubt believe that you're a special agent for your imaginary god and that you're doing that imaginary god's will, no matter how despicable and two-faced your behavior is. <br /><br />You IDiots actually are like your imaginary god, as he is depicted in the bible; monstrous, contradictory, jealous, petty, insane, two-faced, dishonest, selfish, vile, arrogant, shallow, cowardly failures.<br /><br />Oh, and I'm not being mean. My imaginary god, Fifi the pink unicorn, authorized me to speak to you in this way. I am one of her special agents.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49379905149547488612012-02-18T17:20:34.263-08:002012-02-18T17:20:34.263-08:00Hey Phil Cunningham (ba77), why are you so crazy a...Hey Phil Cunningham (ba77), why are you so crazy and dishonest?The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25087019670779255502012-02-18T15:45:48.126-08:002012-02-18T15:45:48.126-08:00I do have a life outside of blogging. Sometimes I ...I do have a life outside of blogging. Sometimes I don't have time to edit out my typos. When I teach, I'm usually more careful. Any more nits you want to pick?natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44794506031407078502012-02-18T09:56:45.730-08:002012-02-18T09:56:45.730-08:00Hawks:
ID gives you no clue what-so-ever what int...Hawks:<br /><br /><i>ID gives you no clue what-so-ever what intelligence should do. Intelligence could design specified complexity - or not.</i><br /><br />This is what I wrote:<br /><br /><i>If so, then, the genome, being the product of an intelligent being---which ID asserts---should show the hallmarks of intelligent design, one of which is the avoidance of huge amounts of wasteful excess. </i><br /><br />You're twisting the argument. Intelligence tells us what intelligence does and does not do. IOW, is it intelligent to write a computer program with a whole bunch of useless code? How do you answer? (But, of course, you'll run away from the question ---in one way or another).<br /><br />You quote Dembski as saying:<br /><br /><i>But what about the predictive power of intelligent design? To require prediction fundamentally misconstrues design. ...Yes, intelligent design concedes predictability.<br /><br /></i><br /><br />And in the very next sentence from the arn page you're quoting, Dembski said:<br /><br /><i>But this represents no concession to Darwinism, for which the minimal predictive power that it has can readily be assimilated to a design-theoretic framework.</i><br /><br />How about that?<br /><br /><br />Did I say anything about ID predicting "junk-DNA"? I said it would assert that "junk-DNA" would turn out to have function. Why? Because that's who intelligent being's design. <br /><br />And Dembski also said:<br /><br /><i>To be sure, designers, like natural laws, can behave predictably (designers often institute policies that end up being rigidly obeyed). </i><br /><br />How about that? <br /><br />(And, of course, this is part of the ellipsis in your above quote of Dembski. Isn't that called "quote-mining"?)<br /><br />And the genome, per Bill Gates, is a computer program beyond anything human intelligence could design. So we're dealing with a supreme intellect at work.<br /><br />These are common sense arguments. To be a Darwinist, you have to leave common sense behind. Darwin tells us that varieties are incipient species, not the end of the line for what species can do and still survive. Does this jive with your everyday experience? Not mine.Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78860367839432326652012-02-18T09:11:48.354-08:002012-02-18T09:11:48.354-08:00Thornfulness:
Because the Wiki article had nothin...Thornfulness:<br /><br /><i>Because the Wiki article had nothing to do with my prediction, that you'd whine EA processes aren't evidence for evolution because human intelligence was involved.</i><br /><br />Mendacious mental midget that you are, you've tried to change the subject because of what is found in the Wikipedia link. Not so fast, Thornfulness:<br /><br />From my link to Wikipedia on EAs:<br /><br /><i>Implementation of biological processes:<br /><br />Usually, an initial population of randomly generated candidate solutions comprise the first generation. The </i>fitness function<i> is applied to the candidate solutions and any subsequent offspring.</i><br /><br />Then we click on "fitness function" and go to the Wikipedia page that tells us:<br /><br /><i>The reason that genetic algorithms are not a lazy way of performing design work is precisely because of the effort involved in designing a workable fitness function. Even though it is no longer the human designer, but the computer, that comes up with the final design, </i>it is the human designer who has to design the fitness function. If this is designed wrongly<i>, the algorithm will either converge on an inappropriate solution, or will have difficulty converging at all.</i><br /><br />Is this too difficult for you to understand and grasp? Or didn't you even bother to read it?<br /><br />One of the things that has become increasingly clear to me as I've grown older is just how much liberals end up describing themselves when they attempt to characterize their opponents. And, so, we simply have to read the above quote to find out who you are. <br /><br />Isn't it you who regurgitates Darwinian [nonsense]?<br /><br />Aren't you the one who can't effectively defend it?<br /><br />Do you actually read science journals, or do you read Talk.Origins instead and wikipedia instead?<br />(You're the Wikipedia master here; and the first thing you suggest to Eugen is......Talk.Origins. com).<br /><br />And, isn't it you who are the mindless Darwinian dolt who refuses to reason for himself?<br /><br />You haven't acquitted yourself well here. Your entire contribution to this board seems to be insulting people. Somehow you think that proves Darwinian theory. <br /><br />Intellectual thuggery is the refuge of scoundrels.Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-3032752270244272052012-02-17T18:45:50.885-08:002012-02-17T18:45:50.885-08:00To address your comment...
Lino: This creation p...To address your comment... <br /><br />Lino: This creation process you're touting can only be of value if replication is possible. And replication is only possible if life comes into existence. But life cannot come into existence unless the right creation theory is stumbled upon. But the right creation theory can only be stumbled upon if something knows how to create itself.<br /><br />That's like arguing we can understand nothing about how umbrellas work unless we have an exhaustive understanding of meteorology. It's a fallacious, disingenuous argument. Not to mention that we've made significant progress in explaining the OOL, which is also a variation of conjecture and refutation, but with different mechanisms. <br /><br />Again, why don't you start out by expelling how we create knowledge? Specifically, how do you explain our relatively recent, rapid increases in the creation of knowledge? <br /><br />For example, "An abstract designer did it", is a bad explanation, in that it's similar to the Greek myth of the seasons: they are both shallow and easily varied, the cast of characters are only connected to seasons though the myth itself, and the roles they play could be varied without significantly reducing it's ability to explain seasons, or the biosphere, respectively. <br /><br />This is in contrast to our current explanation of the seasons, which represents a long chain of hard to vary explanations across multiple fields. The earths rotation is titled in respect to it's orbit around the sun. A spinning sphere retains it's tilt. Surfaces titled away from radiant heat are headed less. The origin of star light (nuclear fusion), etc. If we break any part of this chain, there is no easy way to vary this explanation without significantly impacting it's ability to explain the seasons. There is no where go.<br /><br />In other words, our explanation for the seasons is good not only because it's falsifiable, but because it's hard to vary. <br /><br />Why would the explanation for biosphere be any different? Could it be that you think a voice in a whirlwind told you this was the case?<br /><br />So, how could we make progress if shallow, easily varied (bad) explanations are true? Is that just what God must have wanted?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-26884658231637571442012-02-17T18:31:46.434-08:002012-02-17T18:31:46.434-08:00Lino: You've responded in three separate posts...Lino: You've responded in three separate posts. My reaction to all three is to say that your thinking on all of this appears to be muddled. <br /><br />Is that so? Then you should have no problem pointing out exactly where my comments were "muddled", right?<br /><br />Lino: And I don't think you're open-minded enough for the muddle to be corrected. <br /><br />That's quite a jump there. You've gone from the vague claim of "muddled" to closed-minded and in need of correction. So, before you get ahead of yourself, let's address where my arguments were muddled, shall we?<br /><br />Lino: So, let me just point out what I mean by being muddled:<br /><br />Scott: Evolution explains this in that evolutionary processes are a form of knowledge creation similar to the scientific method. Genetic variation creates "theories" of how to build an organism. These "theories" are tested by by natural selection and those with errors are "discarded" <br /><br />Lino: This creation process you're touting can only be of value if replication is possible. And replication is only possible if life comes into existence. But life cannot come into existence unless the right creation theory is stumbled upon. But the right creation theory can only be stumbled upon if something knows how to create itself.<br /><br />Lino, <br /><br />There's a reason why I keep asking you to explain how knowledge is created. The remainder of my comments elaborate on why this question is relevant, along with responding to what appears to be your attempt to avoid it. <br /><br />So, again, why don't you start out by explaining how knowledge *is* created, then point out how evolutionary theory doesn't fit this explanation? <br /><br />Could it be that you're close-minded in presupposing that knowledge has always existed, but don't want to disclose it because you do not want to expose it to criticism?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50281992677367995892012-02-17T17:12:33.351-08:002012-02-17T17:12:33.351-08:00ID "asserts" that only intelligence can ...<i>ID "asserts" that only intelligence can produce specified complexity. Hence, the genome is the product of an intelligent being.<br /><br />Do you agree with this much?</i><br /><br />This much, ID asserts.<br /><br /><i>If so, then, the genome, being the product of an intelligent being---which ID asserts---should show the hallmarks of intelligent design, one of which is the avoidance of huge amounts of wasteful excess.</i><br /><br />No, this does not follow. The "hallmark of design" you're talking about is simply the existence of specified complexity and ID is trying (and failing, btw) to find ways to detect it. ID gives you no clue what-so-ever what intelligence should do. Intelligence could design specified complexity - or not. It could design without waste - or not. Even Dembski realised this back in 2001 when he wrote(http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm):<br /><br /><i>But what about the predictive power of intelligent design? To require prediction fundamentally misconstrues design. ...Yes, intelligent design concedes predictability.</i><br /><br />How about that?<br /><br /><i>You seem to want to quibble about a word, rather than to deal with facts. I don't.</i><br /><br />Wrong. I am dealing with the fact that ID can't do predictions. Dembski agrees. Unfortunately, lots of ID supporters totally fail to grasp this very simple point.Hawkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11246883471860150444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82524699842603904962012-02-17T14:52:19.320-08:002012-02-17T14:52:19.320-08:00natschuster
"Your still a lying little t...<i>natschuster<br /><br /> "Your still a lying little troll."</i><br /><br />You are a lying little troll nat. You already admitted it. You also spelled "you're" wrong.<br /><br />Some teacher.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.com