Scientists Closer to Solving the Origin of Life on Primitive Earth

[Calabrio]

ok fair enough, but that would essentially tie ID and evolution, thus making them BOTH right

You probably realize this, but ID is not the same as creationism.
The idea you are presenting falls into the realm of ID.
And evolution says that everything came about through random evolution.

None of those ideas argue that evolutionary processes don't exist or earth, it's all about the origin and diversity of all species.

 

[shagdrum]

well, first i'll leave dembski alone.
on to philip johnson. since you don't believe me, i quote from others yet again.

I never said I don't believe you in those quotes, I questioned it's relevance. The motives of it's proponents (which you are inferring from what they said) are irrelevant to the credibility of the theory. You need to establish the relevance of those quotes in determining the credibility of the theory.

Before Sicko (I haven't seen it, so I can't say), all Michael Moore's films were basically hit pieces on certain people (Bush, Heston, Roger Smith). That fact doesn't mean that Moore's films are not credible. What makes Moore's films lacking in credibility is the mischaracterizations, fallacies, disinformation, lies, etc. that make up the substance of the films.

This quote of yours leads to an interesting idea, "it merely makes a cloud of doubt to implant itself." While it still mscharacterizes things a bit, the core of it is an interesting idea; that the proponents of idea are trying to manufacture a "cloud of doubt" to implant the idea of ID. But for that claim to have any credibility, the critiques of Darwinism would have to be less then valid, which is not the case (as has been shown ad nauseum on this forum).

this is the stuff of id. it's goal is to usurp evolution with a creator. leaving out a creator but saying there is one is the same god philosophy of many thousands of years ago.

You are mistaking the motives and goals of some proponents of ID with the theory itself. There is no evidence presented that logically suggests what you claim, in any way. The evidence presented can only suggest that through ad hominem reasoning.

natural selection has a means of operation.
id? a creator. who is the creator?. what is the creator? what is the method of creation?

But, in the case of Darwinism, that means of operation, at least in part is based on nothing more then baseless conjecture and circular reasoning; it cannot be scientifically verified (I am talking about the speciation process under Darwinism, specifically). So this critique is at least as applicable to Darwinism as ID. The "means of operation" need to be verified (necesitating verifiability) in the case of Darwinism and not in the case of ID for this to be a valid critique.

However, ID never proposes a specific mechanism. It only looks at the info to determine in what direction that mechanism might be found; random chance, or intelligent design. In as much as that "direction" functions as a mechanism, it is scientifically verifiable.

So, at best you seem to be making a distinction without difference, and at worst you seem to be making a critique that is substantively more applicable to Darwinism then ID.

you keep saying that, but i have yet to see you support it.

Actually, the burden of proof is on you. I said that ID is just as directly testable as Darwinian evolution. The thing is, Darwinian evolution is not directly testable.

In fact, in light of that fact, let me amend what I said; ID is at least as directly testable as Darwinian evolution, if not more so.

 

[fossten]

i understood what you replied fully. that is a bad example of yours then. but since id is about the creation OF man and life, not creation BY man, maybe you have the answer to how it is a testable hypothesis. if not, STFU.

OOOOHHHH, the dreaded acronym! I'm sure to stop now...You're such a brute.

 

[foxpaws]

hey doughbrain. shag says id is testable. that's his assertion. i'm asking him to prove how it is testable.

In fact, in light of that fact, let me amend what I said; ID is at least as directly testable as Darwinian evolution, if not more so.

Yes, shag, I have asked that as well - you need to have verifiable, testable results, like all of science.

Oh, that's right - you will ignore me. It is a nice ploy - write me off rather than actually answer any of my allegations. Why - because you can't show that ID is a science...

The theory of evolution accurately predicts that we will find evidence of species that once existed but that are now extinct. This is a type of testing...

Unlike the theory of evolution, the theory of Intelligent Design makes no predictions that are testable in the real world. In fact, one could say Intelligent Design predicts a fossil record with no extinct species... why would an intelligent designer create dead ends?

ID simply looks at the evidence, concludes that random evolution would have been impossible, and leaves it there. You can be atheist, agnostic, or religious and still subscribe to the ID hypothesis.

What ID does is look at the final creation - us - and then say there isn't anyway we could end up this way, without intervention. But, Cal, what you and other IDers just don't seem to understand it doesn't matter at all how we ended up, unless you believe in the false science of ID. There is no need to say - wow - there is no way that humans would walk upright unless there was a designer that created that trait. But, it has been found that bipedal motion is far more efficient, and uses far less energy than chimps who 'knuckle walk'. Actually 1/4 of the energy. That is a fairly recent discovery - but, now we know that it wasn't intervention that moved us upright - but we evolved this way because our ancestors were able to conserve energy by going bipedal. Every evolutionary discovery moves ID further and further out of the picture - however ID never makes any discoveries to show us where the 'intelligent designer' steps in and altered the evolution of man - with hard scientific fact - another reason it is a terrible science.

The premise of evolution is that small genetic mutations lead to a biological advantage that leads to it being passed down to successive generations. When dealing with complicated systems like an ear or an eyeball, systems that are so interdependent, small mutations wouldn't provide an advantage they'd be a liability.

Cal, we have learned that though mammalian species look and act very different, they all share many similar genes. So, small numbers of genetic changes (relatively speaking) produce large differences in appearance and behavior - which goes back to your eye/eyeball question - those tiny changes alter very much how differently a tiger's eye works and a gerbil's eye works. It doesn't take much - and the small mutations work wonderfully, a huge advantage in both cases.

 

[hrmwrm]

However, ID never proposes a specific mechanism. It only looks at the info to determine in what direction that mechanism might be found; random chance, or intelligent design

.
that is the problem. as stated by fox, evolution can and does make predictions of findings. id can't. and id does state a mechanism, a designer.
the theory fails to make predictions of how to tell if it was intelligently "designed". (other than dembski's flawed filter. a mathematician who comes up with a biological theory based on probability)
and then to top it off it is going to ride the coat tails of evolution for facts it can't deny.
a good example being how all breeds of dogs can be proven to come from one line. that is chance, right. but the wolf is id'ed by your standard.
so, it wants it's cake and eat it too.
so, why would not all things be intelligently designed and no chance?
because that's already been proven otherwise.

there is no rational that can stand and say id is science.
it is an interesting idea, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[shagdrum]

.that is the problem. as stated by fox, evolution can and does make predictions of findings

"Predictions of findings"?! I thought it was supposed to be scientific! Empirical findings would negate any "predictions". How is that even relevant to this discussion?

and id does state a mechanism, a designer.

So now it does have a mechanism? I thought you said earlier that it didn't.

the theory fails to make predictions of how to tell if it was intelligently "designed".

Again, how does that make it any less scientific. You seem to be trying to turn the excessive speculation and conjecture inherent in Darwinism (that, if anything, hurts it's credibility as a science) into a plus.

and then to top it off it is going to ride the coat tails of evolution for facts it can't deny.

All newer scientific theories "ride the coat tails" of the previous scientific theories in that field.

so, why would not all things be intelligently designed and no chance?
because that's already been proven otherwise.

That is an "accident" fallacy. It mischaracterizes (through generalization) what ID asserts.

there is no rational that can stand and say id is science.

Actually, I (as well as others) have provided plenty of rational, which you have chosen to ignore.

 

[shagdrum]

Yes, shag, I have asked that as well - you need to have verifiable, testable results, like all of science.

Oh, that's right - you will ignore me. It is a nice ploy - write me off rather than actually answer any of my allegations. Why - because you can't show that ID is a science...

The theory of evolution accurately predicts that we will find evidence of species that once existed but that are now extinct. This is a type of testing...

Unlike the theory of evolution, the theory of Intelligent Design makes no predictions that are testable in the real world. In fact, one could say Intelligent Design predicts a fossil record with no extinct species... why would an intelligent designer create dead ends?

So...when you said in a nasty little PM to me on May 26th, specifically regarding and stemming from this thread, that, "I am not going to argue with you any longer Shag, regarding anything", you were lying?

And don't get on your high horse about how I am somehow breaching your trust or something like that. I am simply reflecting your two-faced nature and the lack of civility/good faith that your own actions throughout this forum have demonstrated that you have, and that your actions in this thread and your nasty PM further demonstrate by your lying to me. The only difference is that I am not being catty (disingenuous) about it like you; I am simply being direct and upfront (you might try it sometime).

 

[foxpaws]

So...when you said in a nasty little PM to me on May 26th, specifically regarding and stemming from this thread, that, "I am not going to argue with you any longer Shag, regarding anything", you were lying?

And don't get on your high horse about how I am somehow breaching your trust or something like that. I am simply reflecting your two-faced nature and the lack of civility/good faith that your own actions throughout this forum have demonstrated that you have, and that your actions in this thread and your nasty PM further demonstrate by your lying to me. The only difference is that I am not being catty (disingenuous) about it like you; I am simply being direct and upfront (you might try it sometime).

I was just trying to show that hrmwrm was correct in saying that you don't back up your assertion that ID is testable, but evolution is. I was agreeing with him, not arguing with you, and providing additional references to back up hrmwrm's allegations.

Note, I mostly addressing Cal in that post, not arguing with you.

Thank you once again for bring up PMs within a public forum, it truly shows the color of your demeanor and how you treat others. I will never bring up pm's here on the forum, whether they are yours or anyone else's. They are meant to be private conversations.

I seem to understand that. However, I have learned my lesson, you do not understand that common bit of good manners. Hopefully this example will be a good reference to others who might wish to engage in private conversations with you, do so at your own risk.

 

[shagdrum]

I was just trying to show that hrmwrm was correct in saying that you don't back up your assertion that ID is testable, but evolution is. I was agreeing with him, not arguing with you, and providing additional references to back up hrmwrm's allegations.

And in responding to me here, you were showing that what you said in that PM was a lie.

Thank you once again for bring up PMs within a public forum, it truly shows the color of your demeanor and how you treat others. I will never bring up pm's here on the forum, whether they are yours or anyone else's. They are meant to be private conversations.

So, it is wrong for me to be, in some way "uncivil", but it is perfectly fine for you to be uncivil (judging by the fact that you feel no need to correct your habitually dishonest actions or defend them). How do you justify that double standard?

Is it due to the fact that I am direct/forthright and you are indirect/catty? I would think that, if anything, that factor gives my actions more civility as they are not two-faced and disingenuous like your actions.

I seem to understand that. However, I have learned my lesson, you do not understand that common bit of good manners. Hopefully this example will be a good reference to others who might wish to engage in private conversations with you, do so at your own risk.

Don't try and characterize this as somehow the norm with me. It is only in regards to you and, as I spelled out, it is in reflecting your own lack of good faith, your dishonesty, etc. I am not going to extend to you considerations and civility that you have stopped extending to me.

Most anyone I do communicate with is a decent enough person to be trustworthy, you are clearly not, which is why I generally stopped communicating with you through PM at all. You long ago threw out any standard of good faith in communications between us. Don't try and criticize me for reflecting that now. It only further demonstrates your two-faced nature.

To paraphrase Marcus, "get over yourself".

 

[foxpaws]

Most anyone I do communicate with is a decent enough person to be trustworthy, you are clearly not, which is why I generally stopped communicating with you through PM at all. You long ago threw out any standard of good faith in communications between us. Don't try and criticize me for reflecting that now. It only further demonstrates your two-faced nature.

To paraphrase Marcus, "get over yourself".

You have shown yourself to be untrustworthy Shag - mentioning PMs in an open forum is certainly a very visible trait of someone who is untrustworthy, of which you have done on numerous occasions.

You judge me to be indecent, therefore not worthy of common good manners. Judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one. If anyone had cause to get over yourself, it would be you shag...

I won't get into the brawl of reveling pms - I don't have to, I respect your privacy Shag, something you have a hard time understanding at all. Just as you would like the government to infringe on personal privacy, you feel it is also your prerogative to cross that line.

And so it is - and with that choice come consequences as well Shag. Others are able to see how we both treat the issue of privacy. I respect it, at all costs, while you defile it and then create excuses for doing so.

Cal, you can move this drivel to bickering any time now...

 

[hrmwrm]

"Predictions of findings"?! I thought it was supposed to be scientific! Empirical findings would negate any "predictions". How is that even relevant to this discussion?

i knew you didn't understand science at all. a theory makes predictions. as you explore further, the predictions are found or not found. if found, thats another point towards proof.

So now it does have a mechanism? I thought you said earlier that it didn't

but what is designer? that's not a proveable mechanism. evolution states it's mechanism clearly. what is id hiding?

and you are still avoiding the answer to it's testability. how. explain.
otherwise it's an invalid theory, and you're just as confused about it as the rest promoting it.
and all your other arguements are obfuscation.

 

[shagdrum]

You have shown yourself to be untrustworthy Shag - mentioning PMs in an open forum is certainly a very visible trait of someone who is untrustworthy, of which you have done on numerous occasions.

Twice. Not numerous; twice. And the first time was indirectly and unknowingly, which I did apologize for, but you seem to be willing to overlook.

This second time is very specific and I spelled out why I did it. The PM was made on may 26th; long after any "good faith" between us was cast aside. Don't try to claim that there is some betrayal of trust when there was no trust in the first place regarding that PM.

You are, once again, trying to play the victim here and make something seem a lot worse then it actually is.

You judge me to be indecent, therefore not worthy of common good manners.

That is beside the point. I have recognized that there is no "good faith" (and thus no sense of trust) when it comes to you. That is why I stopped generally communicating with you through PM as far back as January (as far as I can remember). That is also why I stopped extending you those civilities; because you first stopped extending them to me.

I won't get into the brawl of reveling pms - I don't have to, I respect your privacy Shag, something you have a hard time understanding at all. Just as you would like the government to infringe on personal privacy, you feel it is also your prerogative to cross that line.

so, now you have taken to lying about me as well.

And so it is - and with that choice come consequences as well Shag. Others are able to see how we both treat the issue of privacy. I respect it, at all costs, while you defile it and then create excuses for doing so.

They can also see who is more honest and has some sort of integrity. You have shown a lack of good faith in this forum to such a degree that I stopped communicating with you quite a while ago.

The only thing protecting any type of privacy in PM's is a sense of decency and civility between the two people. That was not there when you sent that PM, and had not been there for quite a while. So your "outrage" is either based in massive naivete on your part or is (more likely) disingenuous. But this allows you the opportunity to play the victim and disingenuously play off of others emotions and sympathies. I wonder if that is how you get by in life.

Why is it OK to habitually show a lack of respect for someone's argument (and by extension, them) but it is not OK for that person to then not respect some assumed sense of privacy on your part that is completely inappropriate given the state of the relationship between the two of you?

More on point, you seem to be working furiously to change the subject from the fact that you lied to me to how terrible a person I supposedly am. You seem to be pointing fingers to avoid legitimate criticism.

 

[shagdrum]

i knew you didn't understand science at all. a theory makes predictions. as you explore further, the predictions are found or not found. if found, thats another point towards proof.

No, a theory makes an assertion that, in the form of an hypothesis is tested and either verified or rejected.

And the one who doesn't seem to understand science is you. You are constantly throwing up any talking point you can find that is critical of ID even when you clearly don't understand it let alone being interested in making sure anyone else can understand it.

If the critique you offer is not understandable, the problem is with you and your method of conveying it, not anyone else.

but what is designer? that's not a proveable mechanism. evolution states it's mechanism clearly. what is id hiding?

ID doesn't give a specific mechanism. I have said that quite a few times now.

and you are still avoiding the answer to it's testability. how. explain.

As I have said, it is as testable as Darwinism. All the empirical evidence in support of Darwinism also supports ID because it only shows adaptation.

For the purposes of my argument, all I have to do is to prove that ID is as empirically verifiable as Darwinism (which I have done)

You keep trying to dishonestly shift the burden of proof onto me, when the theory you are hell bent on defending by any means necessary cannot empirically prove it's mechanism for speciation. That is nothing more then deflection.

Then you attempt to move the goalposts by imposing a higher double standard on ID then you do on Darwnism. That serves to keep that burden of proof on me and off of you.

otherwise it's an invalid theory, and you're just as confused about it as the rest promoting it.

If ID is an invalid theory because of the reasons you laid out, then so is Darwinism.

and all your other arguements are obfuscation.

If that were the case then you could show specifically how I am obfuscating, which you haven't. You are clearly throwing that criticism out without any basis.

 

[foxpaws]

Twice. Not numerous; twice. And the first time was indirectly and unknowingly, which I did apologize for, but you seem to be willing to overlook.

Your apology...

Frankly, it has been so long since I talked to you through PM's that I forgot about that. If I betrayed some sense of trust, I am sorry. It, frankly, is pretty obvious, though, which is why I ran with it. And I was referring specifically to the faux part of the term. Faux is defined as; artificial or imitation; fake.That false and manipulative two-face nature of yours is why I generally don't have a desire to communicate with you much.​

You didn't apologize, you justified, and then vilified... And you have continued to justify a lack of understanding the simple word - private.

Don't try to claim that there is some betrayal of trust when there was no trust in the first place regarding that PM.

It concerns a pm shag - once again you are trying to justify your betrayal of a trust. I have never used anyone's pms out on a public forum. No matter what the provocation. As hard as you try shag, there is never any justifying the breach of privacy. I communicated with you in the past via pm, because I respected both of our privacy. You never stated that it was a one way street, you never 'warned' me that should the time arrive, that you would betray that trust because, you, as judge, jury and executioner deemed that I was no longer worthy.

As you are doing here.

They can also see who is more honest and has some sort of integrity. You have shown a lack of good faith in this forum to such a degree that I stopped communicating with you quite a while ago.

The only thing protecting any type of privacy in PM's is a sense of decency and civility between the two people. That was not there when you sent that PM, and had not been there for quite a while. So your "outrage" is either based in massive naivete on your part or is (more likely) disingenuous. But this allows you the opportunity to play the victim and disingenuously play off of others emotions and sympathies. I wonder if that is how you get by in life.

I can't argue this point, because you know I won't bring pm's into this conversation. I am predetermined to lose. The deck is stacked against me because I won't cross the privacy line, and you will shag.

That is how I get by in life shag - I play by the rules. You don't, and after you break the rules, you attempt to justify why you broke them.

More on point, you seem to be working furiously to change the subject from the fact that you lied to me to how terrible a person I supposedly am. You seem to be pointing fingers to avoid legitimate criticism.

No, shag I am doing my damnedest to not insert your PMs into conversation.

Because they are private.

And, unlike you I realize the right to privacy is unalienable.

No wonder you have a hard time understanding the constitution's 'points' regarding this issue. It appears you see it as something that is earned or granted.

I obviously can't earn or be granted something I view as unalienable, and on the other side of the coin, privacy to you isn't a right, but in this case some sort of gift that you can bestow or take back at any time. Your viewpoint on privacy is one that is difficult for me to understand. Especially since, up front, you never stated that my privacy was in jeopardy if I conversed with you off of the public forum.

Cal - please move this.

 

[shagdrum]

It concerns a pm shag - once again you are trying to justify your betrayal of a trust. I have never used anyone's pms out on a public forum. No matter what the provocation. As hard as you try shag, there is never any justifying the breach of privacy. I communicated with you in the past via pm, because I respected both of our privacy. You never stated that it was a one way street, you never 'warned' me that should the time arrive, that you would betray that trust because, you, as judge, jury and executioner deemed that I was no longer worthy.

There has to be some trust there for it to be betrayed. There has to be some sense of privacy there for it to be breached. When there is not civility or decency between two people, those two factors are absent. Again, you are either very naive to think that those qualities were there, or you are being disingenuous.

I can't argue this point, because you know I won't bring pm's into this conversation. I am predetermined to lose. The deck is stacked against me because I won't cross the privacy line, and you will shag.

So we are left with your word against mine. However, your word seems to always have an expiration date attached to it.

If you had some sort of compelling evidence to back it up, you could attempt to disprove what I say without bringing the specifics of a PM into it if you chose to do so. What I am accusing you of is not something you mostly exhibited in PM's, it was and is your constant rudeness and lack of respect in these thread when you mischaracterize, ignore, etc., etc. Then, I contrasted that with your PM's and concluded that you are very two-faced, by nature, and thus someone I don't have any desire to associate with.

All you have to do is show that you are not habitually mischaracterizing arguments, ignoring arguments, etc. etc. However, your trend has been to ignore the substance of those criticisms and use the crutch of playing the victim to attack the style of the critique, or you ignore the critique all together. Basically, you either dishonestly attempt to dodge the criticism by playing the victim, or you ignore it. Either way, you are clearly attempting to avoid confronting it.

That is how I get by in life shag - I play by the rules. You don't, and after you break the rules, you attempt to justify why you broke them.

What rules? The only norms (or "rules" if you wanna call them that) are those of civility, decency and good faith. You habitually break those rules on this forum when you rudely and dishonestly mischaracterize arguments, ignore arguments to perpetuate your false premises, deceptively attempt to reframe the debate, etc. However, you never even acknowledge the fact that you broke those "rules". The fact of the matter is that I am simply following your lead.

And, unlike you I realize the right to privacy is unalienable.

Privacy is unalienable?! WTH is that supposed to mean?

No wonder you have a hard time understanding the constitution's 'points' regarding this issue. It appears you see it as something that is earned or granted.

Yeah, that is a logical inference.

I obviously can't earn or be granted something I view as unalienable, and on the other side of the coin, privacy to you isn't a right, but in this case some sort of gift that you can bestow or take back at any time. Your viewpoint on privacy is one that is difficult for me to understand. Especially since, up front, you never stated that my privacy was in jeopardy if I conversed with you off of the public forum.

So, because you supposedly view privacy as "unalienable" everyone is supposed to conform to you view of privacy? That is more then a little arrogant and presumptuous.

And again, none of this changes the key fact of that quote; that you, in no uncertain terms lied. Then you counted on my extending to you some sense of decency that you had long since stopped extending to me here as a means of avoiding being called on it.

In fact, all this long-winded, disingenuous hand wringing on your part is nothing more then an attempt to deflect the valid criticism that you lied. This is a deceitful pattern that you have shown constantly throughout this forum.

Why is it OK to habitually show a lack of respect for someone's argument (and by extension, them) and flat out lie to them but it is not OK for that person to then not respect some assumed sense of privacy on your part that is completely inappropriate given the state of the relationship between the two of you?

I will repeat what I said in my PM response to you; call me an "@$$hole", "rude" whatever you want but that doesn't mean that my critiques are not valid. The fact of the matter is that you lied, and are now deflecting criticism for it in order to avoid being held responsible. That is something that you constantly do; dodge and deflect in order to avoid responsibility for your actions. You see fit to try an label me as immature, but you are acting like a 21 year with no sense of responsibility. The fact that you are much older then 21 and cannot accept responsibility for your actions makes those actions all the more pathetic.

 

[foxpaws]

Try to justify it all you want shag - you breached a trust - and you continue to do so by failing to understand the simple word - private.

I won't play your game, I will not insert any specific reference to pm's in a public forum. I would never do that, it concerns not only your privacy Shag, but mine, and the value of my word. And, who knows, you could be setting me up for a 'gotcha' moment...

I understand the word private, you don't, it doesn't get any simpler than that. There are no justifications here shag - black and white - private messages are titled that for a reason - they are private.

You can continue to try to justify your obviously huge lack of understanding in this area by stating that you may not like me, you may not respect me, you are going to ignore me, you can call me a liar, but, in the end it is all the same, a desperate attempt to justify something that is unjustifiable.

All private messages are safe with me, I understand the trust that underlies all private messages. With you, they are something that is obviously ambiguous, depending on your set of justifications for that moment.

Perhaps because I am obviously quite a bit beyond 21 I do understand this. I understand the value of my word, and how important it is to have people feel comfortable in placing 'trust' in my actions.

Cal - can you please move this - thanks!

 

[shagdrum]

Try to justify it all you want shag - you breached a trust - and you continue to do so by failing to understand the simple word - private.

You are continuing to lie! There was never any trust to breach. All this effort is simply your childish attempt to avoid criticism and taking responsibility for the fact that you LIED! That is all you do on this forum. All you do is mischarcterize, lie and generally argue without any sense of good faith. Then when you get called on you ignore the criticism for a while then start these dishonest attempts to dodge.

In all this time, you have yet to acknowledge that you lied. You are simply working to deflect and make the topic me instead of your dishonesty.

And don't try and act like the only way you could respond here is by quoting PM's. that is not necessary. In fact, there is nothing in any of the two PM's involved in this that I have any problem being posted on this forum. If you keep perpetuating that false premise, I will have to post both messages in their entirety to defend myself against your further lies.

The fact that you are dishonestly trying to make this seem like some massive breach of trust and of privacy only makes you look more guilty. And don't try and lecture me about the value of your word. YOU LIED!!! And you have done so countless times in this forum. Your word is worthless.

All you are doing since I pointed out the fact that you lied is to try and make the discussion about me! You never apologized or even acknowledged the fact that you lied. You have only attempted to deflect, dodge and avoid responsibility.

It is rather telling that, when you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, your instinct is to lash out at those who caught you. How old are you again?

 

[foxpaws]

And don't try and act like the only way you could respond here is by quoting PM's. that is not necessary. In fact, there is nothing in any of the two PM's involved in this that I have any problem being posted on this forum. If you keep perpetuating that false premise, I will have to post both messages in their entirety to defend myself against your further lies.

Still don't get it - do you shag?

Cal, this one too... off to bicker!!!

Edit - it is hard not to argue with you shag - like on the thread where I would like to discuss assisted suicide rather than argue it... however, I get defensive, and I end up arguing with you, not what I intend at all.

 

[hrmwrm]

No, a theory makes an assertion that, in the form of an hypothesis is tested and either verified or rejected.

once again, you are wrong. physics is probably better suited as an example.
the lhc is being used to look for particles that have been PREDICTED to exist yet as of yet are unknown or unseen.
that is what science does, makes predictions for findings.

And the one who doesn't seem to understand science is you. You are constantly throwing up any talking point you can find that is critical of ID even when you clearly don't understand it let alone being interested in making sure anyone else can understand it.

no, you're misunderstanding of science is why you throw up talking points defending it. it is not science.

For the purposes of my argument, all I have to do is to prove that ID is as empirically verifiable as Darwinism (which I have done)

you've stated that, but haven proven anything.

You keep trying to dishonestly shift the burden of proof onto me

it's not dishonestly. you keep circumventing how to prove intelligent design in something. why not try explaining how you prove anything is intelligently designed.

ID doesn't give a specific mechanism. I have said that quite a few times now.

and that is why it fails scientifically. they have no way in how it works.
what created it. don't know
why was it created. don't know.
where was it created. don't know.
when? don't know.
was it created? oh yeah. it was INTELLIGENTLY designed.
so, what created it? don't know.
id creates species, but has no answer as to how they come into the system, leave the system, nothing. answer that and it might be science.

If ID is an invalid theory because of the reasons you laid out, then so is Darwinism

.


uh, no. evolution has it's mechanism laid out. id doesn't. that invalidates id.
i know how it works, but i'd like to hear you fully explain just how you can tell something is intelligently designed, and how you can prove that.
bet you won't take the offer. because you can't.

 

[fossten]

once again, you are wrong. physics is probably better suited as an example.
the lhc is being used to look for particles that have been PREDICTED to exist yet as of yet are unknown or unseen.
that is what science does, makes predictions for findings.

But can only do so based on either observation or models. Since evolution per se has never been observed, evolutionists are forced to rely on models.

 

[shagdrum]

once again, you are wrong. physics is probably better suited as an example.
the lhc is being used to look for particles that have been PREDICTED to exist yet as of yet are unknown or unseen.
that is what science does, makes predictions for findings.

No, it is theorizing, not making predictions.

it's not dishonestly. you keep circumventing how to prove intelligent design in something. why not try explaining how you prove anything is intelligently designed.

I am not circumventing anything. I have already cited Dembski's work. There is also Behe. Just because you want to ignore certain arguments I have made, ideas I have cited, etc. doesn't mean that they don't exist. Only that you are too dishonest to acknowledge them.

and that is why it fails scientifically. they have no way in how it works.
what created it. don't know
why was it created. don't know.
where was it created. don't know.
when? don't know.
was it created? oh yeah. it was INTELLIGENTLY designed.
so, what created it? don't know.
id creates species, but has no answer as to how they come into the system, leave the system, nothing. answer that and it might be science.

None of that is necessary for it to be a scientific theory. You are trying to move the goalposts, but you haven't provided any justification for your new standard besides the fact that Darwinism assertions a specific mechanism while ID doesn't. That fact doesn't justify your assertion that ID is not a science because of that fact. The mechanism Darwinism assertions is based on speculation, circular reasoning but not on empirical science; it hasn't been verified. ID rejects it, it is not required to replace it with another specific mechanism.

You are dishonestly attempting to move the goalposts.

uh, no. evolution has it's mechanism laid out. id doesn't. that invalidates id.

Darwinism's mechanism is unverified; based on nothing more then speculation. If ID is not a science because it doesn't have a mechanism, then Darwinism isn't a science either because it's mechanism is not scientifically verified.

Basically you are asserting that because one theory makes asserts unprovable, unscientific speculation as fact in an area where the other doesn't, it is scientific and the other isn't. There is no rational basis for you arbitrary standard here. And you claim I don't understand science. At least I actually fully understand what I post.

 

[shagdrum]

Still don't get it - do you shag?

Cal, this one too... off to bicker!!!

Edit - it is hard not to argue with you shag - like on the thread where I would like to discuss assisted suicide rather than argue it... however, I get defensive, and I end up arguing with you, not what I intend at all.

Your whole approach to debate is to disingenuously put those who oppose you on the defensive. You do this by injecting false premises into the debate and backing them up with nothing more then speculation, if you back them up at all. Then you either ignore counterarguments, or mischaracterized those counterarguments in order to defend your false premise. You never function as if you are on the defensive, even when, from an evidenciary standpoint, you logically are. You simply deflect and dodge. It is absurd for you to suggest that you are actually on the defense in some way.

This latest issue is a prime example. You were proven to be lying, you have yet to in any way acknowledge that. You have provided lies to excuse your lack of a defense of that action, but you have not provided any defense of that action, or an apology for that action. Instead, you started your disingenous handwringing over a "violation" of a trust that wasn't there. In short, you tried to make me the issue to deflect any responsibility for the fact that you lied.

 

[hrmwrm]

No, it is theorizing, not making predictions.

No, a theory makes an assertion that, in the form of an hypothesis is tested and either verified or rejected.

sure you know what you are talking about? can't even keep your assertions of predictions straight.

I am not circumventing anything. I have already cited Dembski's work. There is also Behe. Just because you want to ignore certain arguments I have made, ideas I have cited, etc. doesn't mean that they don't exist. Only that you are too dishonest to acknowledge them.

i see, that's your explanation for how id works. if it's improbable, by one mans mathematical probability filter, or LOOKS designed, then it's id at work. that's not much of an explanation.
so, how does this designing take effect in the world? random mutation? how does that work. it's well understood how it works under the evolutionary theory.
new species from nothing? how does that work? i know, thats what all the ufo's are about. they are bringing new species to earth.
this is what i mean by mechanism. for id, there isn't one discussed. why?
because of the other things i've brought up about it's founder.
you can talk as smart as you want about it. it doesn't fool anybody but people with creator hopes.

and as usual, there goes your goalpost rhetoric. a little old shag. fossten falls for it, but i don't.
behe and dembski's system's ARE NOT TEST"S OF PROOF. i'm not moving any goalposts, just asking you to prove YOUR assertion that id IS TESTABLE.
i haven't heard anything from you on it.
dembski and behe say they think they can tell id, NOT PROVE IT OR TEST FOR IT.

and evolution is beyond speculation.it's mechanism has been proven within genetic drift and as you call, adaptation. it's true, full speciation could be said to be unverified. but try mating a great dane with a chihuahua. without outside intervention, it's physically impossible. and there are many other examples where speciation of a form have occured.

Basically you are asserting that because one theory makes asserts unprovable, unscientific speculation as fact in an area where the other doesn't, it is scientific and the other isn't. There is no rational basis for you arbitrary standard here. And you claim I don't understand science. At least I actually fully understand what I post.

really? do you truly understand what gibberish you just posted?
asserts unproveable? wtf?

 

[hrmwrm]

But can only do so based on either observation or models. Since evolution per se has never been observed, evolutionists are forced to rely on models.

based on the theory of evolution, and what shows up within the smaller scale things on mutations, it can easily be scaled to the fossil record. eg. the anthropoid line(primates/humans)
predictions were made that there should be fossils that can be found further back in the line, possibly leading to man. and there have been quite a few fossils of bi-pedal anthropoids found that don't coincide directly with manas he is now. some of these being found within the same time scales as early man, and some within the time scales of each other. we are not the only bi-pedal primate that has ever existed.
we are however, the only bi-pedal primate still in existance. so, what happened to the others? adaptation has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, so to suggest we came from a more ancient line is not stretching anything. we didn't appear out of nowhere.

 

[fossten]

based on the theory of evolution, and what shows up within the smaller scale things on mutations, it can easily be scaled to the fossil record. eg. the anthropoid line(primates/humans)
predictions were made that there should be fossils that can be found further back in the line, possibly leading to man. and there have been quite a few fossils of bi-pedal anthropoids found that don't coincide directly with manas he is now. some of these being found within the same time scales as early man, and some within the time scales of each other. we are not the only bi-pedal primate that has ever existed.
we are however, the only bi-pedal primate still in existance. so, what happened to the others? adaptation has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, so to suggest we came from a more ancient line is not stretching anything. we didn't appear out of nowhere.

You have to have a theory of evolution first. "Assume a [fill in the blank]. Then apply the theory of evolution." It's not based on observation, it's based on a preconceived model. Example: The Cambrian Explosion was invented to account for massive amounts of missing links that evolutionists couldn't explain. But they had to adhere to their theory, so they just made up the CE to account for it, without any scientific basis whatever. Never mind that the CE is more easily explained as 'Creation.'

Presuppositions will always color your 'science.'