tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post3150308585643549090..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Intelligent Design Creationists reveal their top story of 2016Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37722610868654467612017-10-22T05:40:55.083-04:002017-10-22T05:40:55.083-04:00I once supported intelligent design because it fit...I once supported intelligent design because it fit exactly with what we observe today with regards the creation of physical objects. However, when I got wind of the previously unimagined ideas in quantum mechanics, I immediately realized that reality does not always conform to our intuition.in my opinion, evolution explains a lot of observations today which intelligent design cannot explain. One thing IDists fail to realize is that even if we falsify evolutionary theory today, tomorrow or in the next two thousand years, it would not prove intelligent design as they are yet to provide experimental evidence to show intelligent design. It is interesting that Behe conducts experiments not to prove design but falsify aspects of evolutionary theory and in the end they fail. <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17809918130088319613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67545920101072762672017-01-03T13:11:33.377-05:002017-01-03T13:11:33.377-05:00Byers: ID is...Its about God, thinking being, havi...Byers: <i>ID is...Its about God, thinking being, having done the creation...Science."</i><br /><br />Seems legit. Intelligent Design is clearly not about religion. No religion here. Just <i>"Its about God"</i> which is 100% straight up science yo.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2842061628853910122017-01-03T13:08:30.594-05:002017-01-03T13:08:30.594-05:00Byers: "admitting that new answers are legiti...Byers: <i>"admitting that new answers are legitimate because the old answers are not settling things"</i><br /><br />Um, "God did it" is not the new answer. It's a very old answer. And anyway, that's not how the scientific method works. That's how pseudoscience works: false dichotomy.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20867616039316046842017-01-03T13:05:28.572-05:002017-01-03T13:05:28.572-05:00But since adding a protein is trivial (after evolu...But since adding a protein is trivial (after evolution is observed doing it), I'm sure Tommy and Tx can cite a paper where the invisible supernatural intelligent designer adds a protein to a genome. <br /><br />I mean that's trivial now, so they must have an observation of the Intelligent Designer (identity unknown, but rhymes with Todd) actually doing it.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33544968912016739022017-01-03T13:02:15.584-05:002017-01-03T13:02:15.584-05:00Tommy claims proof of a universal negative ("...Tommy claims proof of a universal negative (<i>"There is no evidence! No evidence at all!"</i>), which is easily refuted by one counter-example-- and all you need to trash a universal negative is one counter-example-- so Txpiper responds, NOT by saying what he should, "Oops, guess Tommy was wrong to claim proof of a universal negative", but instead by shifting the goalposts-- indeed, putting the goalposts on a Mythbusters-type motorized drive chassis-- and announcing that the evolution of the one system named (which happens to be irreducibly complex) does not meet the new, revised standard.<br /><br /><i>"they got a transport protein that enables E coli to utilize citrate with genes that it had before"</i><br /><br />What's that called? Oh yeah. Adding what Michael Behe called a Functional Coded Element, which Behe said was never seen in bacteria. *And* evolving an Irreducibly Complex system *by adding stuff to it, one part at a time.* Wait what, didn't Michael Behe say that was impossible too? <br /><br />Why yes, you people all said it was IMPOSSIBLE. Now that it has been observed, you announce it is NOT INTERESTING. Oh, it's TRIVIAL now, huh?<br /><br />Gee, it sure AF wasn't trivial back in the day you people claimed it was IMPOSSIBLE.<br /><br />Creationism: the belief that scientific phenomena go from IMPOSSIBLE to NOT EVEN INTERESTING with no intermediate step.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25382671297026937722017-01-02T16:29:47.650-05:002017-01-02T16:29:47.650-05:00Show me your best one steve.
Show me the best foo...<i>Show me your best one steve.</i><br /><br />Show me the best football play in the NFL this year. <br /><br />There are thousands upon thousands of academic articles on evolutionary biology published every single year, and it's been over 150 years since the publication of The Origin of Species. You very quickly get to a number of examples much higher than the number of football plays in the NFL in a year. So the question I've asked you is easier than the one you asked Steve. Go ahead and tell me the very best football play in the NFL this year.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86369533632051440502017-01-02T16:07:56.347-05:002017-01-02T16:07:56.347-05:00So after 31,000 generations, they got a transport ...<i>So after 31,000 generations, they got a transport protein that enables E coli to utilize citrate with genes that it had before the experiment began. That's heavy duty stuff right there.</i><br /><br />So tx, you want to give a scientific ID explanation of why E. coli in Barry Hall and James Shapiro's "directed evolution" experiments could get to favorable mutations in *one* generation, while Lenski's took 31,000? Is it that God hates Lenski's bacteria? Did they sin? Worship false gods? Please do explain to us the science on this one, inquiring minds want to know.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88685467797143528042017-01-02T15:51:35.264-05:002017-01-02T15:51:35.264-05:00Plus one to Mr. Spearshake. Though among things t...Plus one to Mr. Spearshake. Though among things that are understood, I always liked the bit about us being made from the insides of exploding stars.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72366806154628879392017-01-02T08:01:55.444-05:002017-01-02T08:01:55.444-05:00Tommy, so now you've proclaimed the standard &...Tommy, so now you've proclaimed the standard "evolution can't do this, can't do that thus goddidit", it's time to impress me with scientific data in FAVOR of ID. <br />I've asked this question to all creationists on this blog, and the 'best' I've seen until now, is just another regurgitation of "evolution can't do this, can't do that thus goddidit".<br /><br />Tommy, if you can provide evidence in favor of ID, I bet you'll make it to the number 1 slot on EvoNews at the end of 2017.<br />Good luck!Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15924368353226400878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23596811815822245992017-01-02T07:56:04.267-05:002017-01-02T07:56:04.267-05:00Sorry, txpiper. When Tommy Hall asked for "a...Sorry, txpiper. When Tommy Hall asked for "any evidence whatsoever that unguided processes (random mutation plus selection) can add new features and thus construct populations" I thought he was asking for evidence that unguided processes (random mutation plus selection) can add new features and thus construct populations, so that is what I provided. Maybe you could explain what he meant by "any evidence whatsoever that unguided processes (random mutation plus selection) can add new features and thus construct populations" other than any evidence whatsoever that unguided processes (random mutation plus selection) can add new features and thus construct populations.<br /><br />BTW, didn't you notice that a group of your fellow IDiots, in one of their rare attempts to actually perform a scientific experiment, ended up demonstrating that the same trait could evolve in as few as 12-100 generations? Oopsy! Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85432755021385202202017-01-02T06:21:01.286-05:002017-01-02T06:21:01.286-05:00Why would you think 31.000 generations is too long...Why would you think 31.000 generations is too long? You seem to be doing nothing but stating the fact that this change happened in 31.000 generations, but doing nothing to demonstrate why this is much longer than it should be, or that this is a problem for the evolution of life. Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13628497048392919212017-01-02T01:25:05.110-05:002017-01-02T01:25:05.110-05:00"Been there, done that:"
So after 31,00..."Been there, done that:"<br /><br />So after 31,000 generations, they got a transport protein that enables E coli to utilize citrate with genes that it had before the experiment began. That's heavy duty stuff right there. You can dig in deep with big dog evolution like that. Is that how you acquired the billions of neurons that you use to equate yourself with carrots and chickens? txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14510809735230973712017-01-01T21:47:52.463-05:002017-01-01T21:47:52.463-05:00When I was a teen, I was attracted to science by t...When I was a teen, I was attracted to science by the things that were not yet understood. Not by what was understood. IDists appear to be happy with the unknown. Even revel in it. Sorry, but that level of complacency isn't for me. <br /><br />William Spearshakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09354659259971103985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64498078916121906492017-01-01T19:48:25.759-05:002017-01-01T19:48:25.759-05:00This Royal meeting, was the Queen there and if so ...<i>This Royal meeting, was the Queen there and if so whats her vote....</i><br /><br />I don't know if this was meant as a joke, but it's pretty funny.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60779440854055747672017-01-01T19:40:23.732-05:002017-01-01T19:40:23.732-05:00When you evos have any evidence whatsoever that un...<i>When you evos have any evidence whatsoever that unguided processes (random mutation plus selection) can add new features and thus construct populations let me know.</i><br /><br />Been there, done that:<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment<br /><br />So, your turn: When can we expect creationists to report observing God creating new species out of thin air in the lab?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77832363423788702442017-01-01T19:21:22.725-05:002017-01-01T19:21:22.725-05:00To the public, not just textbooks, it has been str...To the public, not just textbooks, it has been strongly presented to this day that Mutation plus selection plus time equal evolution of this to that.<br />Overthrowing this is a historic thing even if some researchers already admit to it.<br />This Royal meeting, was the Queen there and if so whats her vote, was admitting that new answers are legitimate because the old answers are not settling things. within this paradigm change there is advancement of yEC/ID ideas however much in the back.<br />Different ways still means correction of ways previously proposed. the meeting is highlighting new ways are needed and welcome.<br />AHA. Something is wrong with the evidence for conclusions.<br /><br />ID is about design within evolutionism and without evolutionism being true.<br />Its about chance being unlikely/impossible to have created the glory of complexity and diversity in the universe. Its about God , thinking being, having done the creation as a demanding conclusion from study of nature. Science. Better science .<br /> Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4695991513136485212017-01-01T18:11:50.912-05:002017-01-01T18:11:50.912-05:00Show me your best one steve. Show me your best one steve. Tommy Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15943150628589342695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59513744481729484052017-01-01T18:11:30.808-05:002017-01-01T18:11:30.808-05:00"Until then you all will continue to be pitie...<i>"Until then you all will continue to be pitied by those of us who can see through the crap."</i><br /><br />I doubt that you can see through the crap of self-deception that's required to think that some imaginary being, called "God," is an answer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21153224020967071472017-01-01T17:56:02.263-05:002017-01-01T17:56:02.263-05:00Which of the dozens of experiments that have shown...Which of the dozens of experiments that have shown this do you dispute? If you don't even know of them, it is hard to accept your denial as credible or informed.Steve Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14297720192384124051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5281920752585093582017-01-01T15:48:02.289-05:002017-01-01T15:48:02.289-05:00When you evos have any evidence whatsoever that un...When you evos have any evidence whatsoever that unguided processes (random mutation plus selection) can add new features and thus construct populations let me know. Until then you all will continue to be pitied by those of us who can see through the crap. Tommy Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15943150628589342695noreply@blogger.com