tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post3484663493771567464..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Ann Gauger moves the goalpostsLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger169125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62020965840941571082014-12-28T04:47:19.998-05:002014-12-28T04:47:19.998-05:00Larry said:
You probably aren't letting studen...Larry said:<br /><i>You probably aren't letting students know that there's a lot of controversy over the evolutionary importance of exon shuffling and the significance of alternative splicing</i><br /><br />I believe there always will be more or less controversial, i.e. subjects about which there is not a 100% agreement between scientists. We are not at science's end like it was claimed IIRC ~100 years ago, there still is and will for a long time yet be plenty of fascinating stuff to be discovered and studied. Unfortunately, there never will be any news for IDiots, they already are and always will be at knowledges end.<br /><br />Quest said:<br /><i>.I always enjoy how evolutionists are able to come up with tons of excuses and zero scientific evidence for their lousy claims... Ever since logically thinking people have begun asking questions and demanding evidence... all of the sudden evolution has stopped for some reason... Monkeys don't evolve into super monkeys... they don't drop their tails and run to schools to learn to speak at least one word... Human kind is not evolving into superhuman... quite contrary... With the accumulation of so many mutations should we be flying by now at least... or be able to develop new functions by now..? By now the way I see it I should have evolved at least a lump of meat that should be sticking out of my body.... what it would be in 600 million years a third hand to use the cellphone while I'm driving...</i><br /><br />If that is representative of his interpretation and understanding of evolution, responding is a 100% wasted effort. He's out of the game altogether, and I can only assume he isn't even just any run-of-the-mill IDiot but actually a true idiot.<br /><br />Besides, all questions about how implementation of design has been accomplished over a tiem spane of 3 - 4 billion years of evolution (guided, or not) still remain unanswered. Unless goddidit (i.e. we haven't got a clue) still is the ultimalte anwer to any question you may ask.Rolf Aalberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12878337054438652463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43171461894686417512014-12-24T17:37:23.038-05:002014-12-24T17:37:23.038-05:00Missy35,
If you have already made up your mind a...Missy35, <br /><br />If you have already made up your mind about your beliefs... why are you here...? Are you trying to challenge your gods... ?<br /><br />BTW: At least Gauger and Axe preformed some experiments that you obviously don't like the results of... I mean... That is natural... I have never met an evolutionists who after making his/her mind what he/she is going to believe in... changed his/her mind... It is true that it works both ways but we're supposed to be different here... on this blog.. Larry and his disciples have agreed to say the truth, nothing but the truth... so help them Darwin..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44340582316170393162014-12-24T17:08:47.009-05:002014-12-24T17:08:47.009-05:00Ed,
Why should I read this s..t....? Do you thin...Ed, <br /><br />Why should I read this s..t....? Do you think that court ruling... even the supreme court ruling....is going to change my mind about the theory that has no foundation-the origins of life first- and has no evidence for the claims...? <br /><br />Give me one evidence/experimental reason to change my beliefs... <br /><br />I know very well what you can produce.. nothing...so come up with some real stuff and not the usual evolutionary bulls..t "...what if.." or in other words... what if evolution could preforms this miracle.... or other....<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55242356343794706872014-12-24T11:10:18.783-05:002014-12-24T11:10:18.783-05:00Steve,
You should really avoid making these kinds...Steve,<br /><br />You should really avoid making these kinds of comments until you understood what you're talking about. None of Larry's was about "devolution." Enzymes are generally promiscuous, only their catalysis is much better towards one reaction than for another. When enzymes specialize it mostly means that they evolve much better affinity for some reactions and thus catalyze that much better than before. It's not a matter of a simple "choice" where the enzyme disregards something it use to like in order to work only on one of several choices. It is actual changes in affinity and reaction speeds from often quite poor to very good.<br /><br />But enzymes are rarely perfect specializers because such kind of specialization is very hard to accomplish. You need to understand physics and chemistry, then catalysis and biochemistry before you could understand why this is so. Once you learn these subjects, evolution of enzyme catalysis becomes understandable, and falling prey of creationist/ID propaganda becomes quite hard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49468542471887428302014-12-24T01:40:58.350-05:002014-12-24T01:40:58.350-05:00Quest, quest, quest... do try to read and understa...Quest, quest, quest... do try to <b>read and understand</b> the court transscripts and judges closing arguments next time before responding. <br /><br />It was the ID movement looking for a court case, and it was the ID movement who got their asses handed back to them <b>due to lack of evidence in favor of ID</b> and <b>massive evidence in favor of evolution</b>. ID was given ample time and space to present their stuff, but they utterly failed every single time to come up with conclusive evidence.<br /><br />And why would a judge be debated with? Does a judge need to kill someone first before he can rule on a murder case? No, a judge needs to weigh the evidence pro and contra and he needs to base a ruling on <b>facts and evidence</b>. <br /><br />But, I understand, it's back to insults again quest? Dunning Kruger effect kicking in?Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15924368353226400878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49950548745416485032014-12-23T21:05:51.191-05:002014-12-23T21:05:51.191-05:00At least one of the monkeys got out of the zoo and...At least one of the monkeys got out of the zoo and tried to join humans at some university... but I think there are more mutant monkeys out there... see Ann Gauger and the all ID movement for instance...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14647952761619665724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-771163716269887272014-12-23T21:00:30.142-05:002014-12-23T21:00:30.142-05:00Quest: «Monkeys don't evolve into super monkey...Quest: «Monkeys don't evolve into super monkeys... they don't drop their tails and run to schools to learn to speak at least one word.» <br />Apparently (taking into account that you were here, typing this), at least one of them has learned a few things, but not enough to understand what he criticizes. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14647952761619665724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26333216487855499272014-12-23T17:51:33.732-05:002014-12-23T17:51:33.732-05:00Ed,
The next level of evolutionary terror is tea...Ed, <br /><br />The next level of evolutionary terror is teach your Darwinian s..t in private and orthodox religious schools... somehow... I think you can accomplish that... Too bad for the evidence... but you never had one in the first place so it will be just a swap; substituting one set of beliefs for another...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37541347713270348152014-12-23T17:36:57.607-05:002014-12-23T17:36:57.607-05:00Ed,
I think the there is no lower level of disgr...Ed, <br /><br />I think the there is no lower level of disgrace to what the so-called science can drop to than the levels of courts to enforce it's believes without providing evidence...<br /><br />To me... whoever mentions the Dover case as proof of evolution deserves a medal of honor... from a Dollar Store...I mean... how can I argue against a moron judge who has not idea about evolution or the origins of life...? How...? <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-1008144593139180552014-12-23T07:40:58.140-05:002014-12-23T07:40:58.140-05:00"We've never seen evolution evolve a cow ...<i>"We've never seen evolution evolve a cow that can travel faster than the speed of light or teleport itself!"</i><br /><br />Diogenes: How would you know? Moo - and by the time you turn around, I'll be gone! (Or, with FTL travel, maybe it's that I already was gone, before I got there?)judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69003327195008572062014-12-23T04:09:32.702-05:002014-12-23T04:09:32.702-05:00Quest, Quest... it seems you have missed the year ...Quest, Quest... it seems you have missed the year 2005 altogether? Let me refresh your memory:<br />http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science#4._Whether_ID_is_Science<br /><br />We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: <br />(1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; <br />(2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and<br />(3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.<br /><br />If you read the judges closing statements you find lots of references to 'no evidence in favor of ID', 'negative arguments against evolution, don't count as evidence in favor of ID, 'many peer reviewed scientific papers with evidence in favor of evolution' and the failed attempts of Prof. Behe to forward blod clotting, the flagellum and immune system as IC. In each case there's evolutionary evidence how these so-called IC systems could have arisen without a super natural being waving a wand and *poof*.<br /><br />Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15924368353226400878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3553220444348199242014-12-22T18:06:30.200-05:002014-12-22T18:06:30.200-05:00MissyAtheist32,
I always enjoy how evolutionists...MissyAtheist32, <br /><br />I always enjoy how evolutionists are able to come up with tons of excuses and zero scientific evidence for their lousy claims... Ever since logically thinking people have begun asking questions and demanding evidence... all of the sudden evolution has stopped for some reason... Monkeys don't evolve into super monkeys... they don't drop their tails and run to schools to learn to speak at least one word... Human kind is not evolving into superhuman... quite contrary... With the accumulation of so many mutations should we be flying by now at least... or be able to develop new functions by now..? By now the way I see it I should have evolved at least a lump of meat that should be sticking out of my body.... what it would be in 600 million years a third hand to use the cellphone while I'm driving...<br /><br />But some evolutionists wonder if the accumulation of mutations (whichever you wish) is causing human genome to deteriorate and by the same token prevent evolution...<br />OK Missy, you probably don't know it yet... but if you do... just keep it to yourself...<br />For evolution.. the real one... not minimal change in birds beak or d..k...for one kind of animal to develop into another kind the changes would have to take place within the cell...the embryo, at the very molecular level...<br /><br />The body plans are soooo different... so unique... so mind boggling... only a devoted Darwinists can be so blind not to see it... <br /><br />Congrats... You have just joined the club of "deliberately blind" ... people... possibly...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2983640503680860512014-12-20T15:00:47.058-05:002014-12-20T15:00:47.058-05:00Someone. Possibly Barry Arrington, asks
Are you a...Someone. Possibly Barry Arrington, asks<br /><br /><i>Are you asking this because you are unable detect design? Don't tell me you are not doing [sic] every day? </i><br /><br />Yes, that is correct. I ask because I am unable to either define or detect design. Can you explain how to do those things?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-84817856901541741692014-12-20T05:54:02.648-05:002014-12-20T05:54:02.648-05:00sez me, as quoted by unknown: "Have you seen ...sez me, as quoted by unknown: "Have you seen a designer create engines, etc without a body of knowledge that was ultimately gained by trial-and-error"<br /><br />sez unknown, in their reply to what they quoted from me: "The designer uses intelligence for directed (not random) trials…"<br />Hold it, unknown. I specifically asked if you'd ever seen a designer create designs "without a body of knowledge that was ultimately gained by trial-and-error". You now say "The designer uses intelligence for directed (not random) trials", fine, but <i>is this "designer" of yours working <b>without</b> a body of knowledge that was ultimately gained by trial-and-error?</i><br /><br />"The designer uses intelligence to interpret the body of knowledge."<br />Ah… so this "designer" of yours <i>does</i> have the benefit of working with a pre-existing body of knowledge. This "designer" of yours is, therefore, <i>not</i> just deducing The Right Thing To Do from first principles and pure ratiocination; rather, this "designer" of yours is guided, to some degree, by a pre-existing body of knowledge. Cool.<br /><br />Where did that pre-existing body of knowledge come from, unknown? I would hope you'd agree that that body of knowledge hasn't always been as large as it is today—that that pre-existing body of knowledge becomes smaller and smaller as one looks increasingly far back in time, and that, if one looks far enough back in time, one eventually reaches a point before <i>any</i> part of the aforementioned body of knowledge existed.<br /><br />So… how was that body of knowledge acquired? Once a particular piece of information has been discovered, that piece of information can of course be used by any later "designer" who's aware of it. But <i>how does any "designer" become aware of that piece of information in the first place?</i> Surely there was, for any one Datum X, a <i>first</i> "designer" to become aware of that Datum X; so <i>how</i> did that first "designer" become aware of that Datum X? As best I can tell, that first "designer" <i>couldn't</i> have become aware of Datum X as a result of anything other than trial and error. If you disagree, perhaps you'd care to explain what alternative metholodogy, <i>other than</i> trial an error, which a "designer" might employ when discovering some datum that's new to them?Cubisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18112097625072217558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67473769777395252522014-12-20T03:36:20.316-05:002014-12-20T03:36:20.316-05:00As I said before, the likelihood that Unknown is A...As I said before, the likelihood that Unknown is Arrington is increased greatly by the fact that he picked an argument about bird systematics with a real expert in bird systematics, John Harshman. That kind of face-plant is just like Arrington, who picks fights over information theory with Jeff Shallit, a professor who actually teaches information theory. This has led to many comical posts at Shallit's blog. Arrington likes to argue with real experts not over random subjects, but over the very field where their expertise vastly outstrips his.<br /><br />While Arrington is not an expert at either taxonomy nor information theory, what is he an expert at? This will be fun, bear with me.<br /><br />For one thing, he used his law degree as an abortion ambulance chaser.<br /><br /><i>The energetic Arrington is a sworn enemy of Planned Parenthood: He uses big billboards to solicit business from people "injured" by abortions.</i> [<a href="http://www.westword.com/1994-10-19/news/talking-trash/full/" rel="nofollow">Talking Trash: Supporters of Amendment 16 include a titillating coalition of Porn-again Christians and Denver bluebloods.</a> Westword [Denver]. 1994.]<br /><br />God I'd love to hear his radio ads from the 90's: 'Hello, I'm Barry Arrington. If you went to Planned Parenthood and begged them to terminate your pregnancy, call me and we'll make up an injury to sue them for.'<br /><br />What else is he an expert in? Well, in the 1990's he was a crusader against free speech, pushing anti-porn laws:<br /><br /><i>Combative anti-abortion attorney Barry Arrington, also a Republican candidate for the District 20 state Senate seat, leads the charge for [anti-Pornography] Amendment 16, <b>talking in detail about the horrors of bestiality and gerbil-jamming</b> while accusing his opponents of "scare-mongering" about censorship. <b>"A woman having oral sex with a dog and persons inserting small rodents into the rectum," he volunteers.</b> "Don't tell me that's in the same category as Catcher in the Rye."<br /><br />..For all their talk about protecting Colorado's women and children from hard-core pornography--Planned Parenthood's Reinisch recalls Arrington as <b>particularly obsessed with "women and dogs"</b>...</i> [Ibid.]<br /><br />Now Barry, I thought you ID proponents believed we should "teach both sides"? Doesn't it follow students should be taught "both sides" of gerbil-jamming?<br /><br />OK, Arrington is not an expert at taxonomy, information theory, probability, paleontology, genetics, molecular biology, or <i>anything</i> relevant to evolution, but woman-on-dog he's got down. I defer to your greater expertise on that one, Barry.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79673146780023242912014-12-20T03:14:57.244-05:002014-12-20T03:14:57.244-05:00Unknown, who is probably Arrington, links to this ...Unknown, who is probably Arrington, links to <a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/12/ann-gauger-moves-goalposts.html?showComment=1418573980414&m=1#c9024858701046998305" rel="nofollow">this comment by me</a>, but he doesn't want you to read <a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/12/ann-gauger-moves-goalposts.html?showComment=1418527165363&m=1#c6615343496330695673" rel="nofollow">my comment one comment directly above that</a>, where I wrote: <i>"Now I could ask "Unknown" what's his definition of "Novelty"? But I know from experience that IDcreationists like..."Unknown", etc. never, ever answer questions which expose the false premises behind their claims and assertions. I'm done asking rhetorical questions and I'm done asking IDcreationists to define their terms. I know they'll never answer because anti-evolution in all forms is a massive fraud."</i><br /><br />And the comment after that I wrote, <i>"That usually makes "Unknown" run away. Oh what was your definition of "novelty" again?"</i>, which was sarcasm, pointing out that IDiots never define their terms, but always evade. However, Arrington knows that in the comment above that I told him I don't ask IDiots to define their terms. Sarcasm has the opposite of its literal meaning. If I say to Arrington, "Wow, you're a genius" it doesn't literally mean I think he's a genius.<br /><br />Unknowns' response increases the probability that he is Arrington. This childish name-calling and ad hominem attack is Arrington's style. Unknown has not yet used the words "Idiot" and "ignorant" which are Arrington's favorite words, but the likelihood is increasing.<br /><br />Compare "Unknown" above to Arrington's style. <br /><br />Unknown: <i>"From now on when you see me writing the word Liar you should know who am I referring to."</i> <br /><br />The only other UDite who writes this way is Joe Gallien, but Joe cannot resist threats of violence and four-letter words.<br /><br />Now here's Arrington's style.<br /><br /><i>"BTW, if you say the prominent Darwinists did not howl for years and years about junk DNA being a clincher for their theory, then <b>you are either ignorant or a liar.</b> I don’t know which you are."</i><br /><br />[About the second banning of the most polite person ever at UD]: <i>"[Elizabeth Liddle] was not banned merely for asking questions. <b>Those who would say that she was are either idiots or liars, probably the latter.</b>"</i><br /><br /><i>"Do you seriously think I banned EL merely because she asked a tough question? If so, <b>I agree; you are an idiot.</b>"</i><br /><br /><i>"When you make absurd statements (e.g., an ethicist does not make ethical judgments) <b>you are either stupid or dishonest. You insist you are not dishonest. OK.</b>"</i><br /><br /><i>"WS [William Spearshake], it is still a lie; feel free to try to justify it if you like."</i><br /><br /><i>"It is closer to the truth that he [Prof. Jeff Shallit] is afraid to post here, because every time he comments on this subject he is made to look like a screaming idiot... That [Shallit's accurate description of information theory, the field of which he is a professor] is a sentence only a highly educated idiot could have written."</i><br /><br /><i>"Tin, you are a coward."</i><br /><br /><i>"Tin...You’ve been downgraded from “coward” to “pathetic sniveling coward.” We’re done."</i> [Tin is then banned]<br /><br />And so on, ad infinitum.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78222745391625932572014-12-20T01:03:50.379-05:002014-12-20T01:03:50.379-05:00Diogenes:"Note that as I predicted Unknown di...Diogenes:"Note that as I predicted Unknown did not define "novelty" nor answer my questions. <br />.....<br />Oh what was your definition of "novelty" again?""<br /><br />http://sandwalk.blogspot.ro/2014/12/ann-gauger-moves-goalposts.html?showComment=1418573980414&m=1#c9024858701046998305<br /><br /><br />Didn't I tell you to read your comments? Even a random search would have found your comment. From now on when you see me writing the word Liar you should know who am I referring to.<br /><br />"But we have seen new enzymes evolve that have different EC numbers than their ancestral form, so we've seen the evolution of novelty firsthand."<br /><br />Can you show us the best example of novelty by your definition? With open letter please . And sign with your new name.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15048816306720334798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51735824890301498842014-12-19T09:38:46.098-05:002014-12-19T09:38:46.098-05:00First, all human designers gain information slowly...First, all <i>human</i> designers gain information slowly over time by starting out ignorant and then interacting with the environment by material means. <br /><br />Second, all <i>human</i> designers employ trial and error and make random mistakes in the process of designing, because they start out with limited knowledge. <br /><br />Thirdly, all <i>human</i> designers have material bodies and necessarily interact with the created (not merely designed) object by material means. <br /><br />Fourthly, the more complex an artificial creation is, the more likely it is to be the product of many humans competing against each other and making mistakes along the way.<br /><br />Thus, if there were a valid analogy between humans and spirits and spooks, as ID proponents claim, then we would conclude that:<br /><br />1. Living things, since they are more complex than human artifacts, must be the products of many designers (with a population probably greatly exceeded the human population) competing against each other and making mistakes along the way.<br /><br />2. The many designers of organisms have material bodies necessarily because they must interact with created matter by material means.<br /><br />3. The many designers of organisms started out ignorant and gained information slowly over time by interacting with the environment by material means.<br /><br />4. The many designers of organisms employ trial and error and make random mistakes in the process of designing, because they started out with limited knowledge.<br /><br />Unless of course one is willing to acknowledge, first of all, that the allegation of an analogy between humans with material bodies and hypothetical spooks and spirits is an absurd and unsubstantiated analogy. <br /><br />And secondly, that is an attempt at God of the Gaps logic, which logically is a combination of a logical disjunction and then a contradiction: <br /><br />1. All complex stuff was made by humans, <br /><br />2. Therefore all complex stuff was made by humans *OR SPOOKS*, [disjunction], <br /><br />3. Organisms are complex stuff not made by humans [contradiction of 1], <br /><br />4. <b>Therefore organisms were made by spooks.</b> <br /><br />The combination of disjunction and contradiction can produce any conceivable conclusion. In philosophy, that's called <b>"logical explosion"</b> which leads to <i>trivialism</i>, meaning that all propositions along with their contradictions are made true. You can prove organisms were made by the Great Pumpkin the same way:<br /><br />1. All complex stuff was made by humans, <br /><br />2. Therefore all complex stuff was made by humans *OR THE GREAT PUMPKIN*, [disjunction], <br /><br />3. Organisms are complex stuff not made by humans [contradiction of 1], <br /><br />4. <b>Therefore organisms were made by the Great Pumpkin.</b> <br /><br />Substitute whatever you like in place of "the Great Pumpkin", it works for anything. The IDiots just shoved in the Christian Trinity.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89710908213162392772014-12-19T09:21:01.536-05:002014-12-19T09:21:01.536-05:00Unknown never defined "design" or any of...Unknown never defined "design" or any of his other terms, exactly as I predicted. So he tries to bury that fact by going for the ad hominem: <i>"<b>You did ask me [to define design]. I should call you a liar right now</b>, but I let you read again your comments and correct your statement."</i><br /><br />Oh did I, "Unknown"? Did I?<br /><br />Just search this page for the word "fraud" and see what I wrote.<br /><br />Me: <i>"Now I could ask "Unknown" what's his definition of "Novelty"? But I know from experience that IDcreationists like Behe, Wells, Arrington, "Unknown", etc. <b>never, ever answer questions which expose the false premises behind their claims and assertions. I'm done asking rhetorical questions and I'm done asking IDcreationists to define their terms. I know they'll never answer</b> because anti-evolution in all forms is a massive fraud."</i><br /><br />Me again: <i>"So never ask them to define their terms. Simply state directly that their claims are gobbledygook because they have not defined their essential terms, and they will never define their terms because anti-evolution is a fraud. A fraud and that's all."</i><br /><br />Me a third time: <i>"As I said before, I no longer ask IDiots to define anything. They won't define their terms because anti-evolution is a fraud."</i><br /><br />And exactly as I predicted, no anti-evolutionist trolls on this page have defined "design", "novelty", "information", etc. etc. If they say "Random blind chance can't make engines", (leaving aside for the moment that natural selection is not random blind chance), you can be sure they will never give one definition of "engine" (or whatever) but they will either give no definitions, or they will give two or more definitions, so they can equivocate. <b>The "inference to design" is a fraud because the inductive step (major premise) always uses a different definition than the deductive step (minor premise).</b> The equivocation may be in words like "information", "design", "novelty" etc. but it can be in other words like "engine", "motor", etc.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-23511767450980238012014-12-19T08:41:15.353-05:002014-12-19T08:41:15.353-05:00LOL have you seen random errors using body of know...<i>LOL have you seen random errors using body of knowledge ?????????</i><br /><br />LOL have you heard the Thermos joke?????<br /><br />First person: "When you put hot stuff in a Thermos, it stays hot. When you put cold stuff in, it stays cold."<br /><br />Second person: "Yeah, so?"<br /><br />First person: "How does it <i>know</i>?"judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44217379359500578282014-12-19T03:50:40.759-05:002014-12-19T03:50:40.759-05:00I asked you more than 10 times show us the best yo...<i>I asked you more than 10 times show us the best you've got random errors can do. </i><br /><br />Thompson's Gazelle. The Dandelion. The Pipistrelle. What's the best <i>intelligently designed</i> organism, in your view? No guessing. AllanMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05955231828424156641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52217988419996201632014-12-19T02:57:14.070-05:002014-12-19T02:57:14.070-05:00Unknown writes:
"Haven't you realized by ...Unknown writes:<br />"Haven't you realized by now that with your excuses you are only admitting your lack of evidence?"<br /><br />Perhaps you should read up on the 2005 Dover case, dear Unknown:<br />http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science#Page_86_of_139<br /><br />Interesting bits like:<br />In addition, Dr. Miller refuted Pandas’ claim that evolution cannot account for new genetic information and pointed to more than three dozen peer-reviewed scientific publications showing the origin of new genetic information by evolutionary processes. (1:133-36 (Miller); P-245).<br /><br />Or you might like to try:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Closing_arguments<br /><br />In particular:<br />"We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. …"<br /><br />Do tell, where's the overwhelming evidence ID missed in 2005? <br />And uhh, what Gauger writes above is a violation of 3.<br /><br />Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15924368353226400878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82753661475363021022014-12-19T02:24:03.521-05:002014-12-19T02:24:03.521-05:00Why should I define design? ID is your pet hypothe...Why should I define design? ID is your pet hypothesis, you must easily be able to define design. <br />A definition like 'look around you and wonder at gods work' isn't SMART enough. Because the first question which comes to my mind would be which god are we talking about?<br /><br />Oh, and BTW a definition isn't the same as proof. Good luck.Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15924368353226400878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83951935283932470162014-12-19T00:39:55.063-05:002014-12-19T00:39:55.063-05:00"Have you seen a designer create engines, etc..."Have you seen a designer create engines, etc without a body of knowledge that was ultimately gained by trial-and-error"<br /><br />The designer uses intelligence for directed (not random) trials , uses intelligence to plan to look ahead to invent.None of these random errors can do.The designer uses intelligence to interpret the body of knowledge.<br /><br />LOL have you seen random errors using body of knowledge ?????????Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15048816306720334798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-28569931315790979272014-12-19T00:35:18.281-05:002014-12-19T00:35:18.281-05:00"I specifically said that I do NOT ask IDiots..."I specifically said that I do NOT ask IDiots to define "novelty" or anything else"<br /><br />You did ask me. I should call you a liar right now, but I let you read again your comments and correct your statement.<br /><br />So what do we got here? more excuses. Haven't you realized by now that with your excuses you are only admitting your lack of evidence?<br /><br />I understand that you prefer a definition of novelty which measures only trivial changes.<br />I asked you more than 10 times show us the best you've got random errors can do. You know very well that the best you've got is nothing.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15048816306720334798noreply@blogger.com