The Top-Ten Misinformed Objections to ID

[manifold]

And the number one, well-informed objection to ID...


Ignorant retards like M.D. Rawlings won't shut the fuck up about it.

 

[geauxtohell]

More sophistry! No science! Self-righteous piddle! And in all likelihood most of you, if not all, are leftists, too. No surprise.

No. On this thread the only person who has been polite is konradv, and I have responded to him in kind. geauxtohell never does anything but misrepresent, and has gotten clobbered for it every time. You're just too stupid to see that or too dishonest to acknowledge it. Greenbeard makes a pretense of politeness, but doesn't address the arguments at hand. He merely repeats the same thing over and over again as if bald statements were arguments. He's an arrogant, know-nothing ass, and deserves nothing but my contempt. And you are an ass-kissing piss ant, who apparently cannot talk the science either.

It's endless philosophy with you twits! Slogans in the place of argumentation or argumentation by marginalization. Same thing. No substance. No science. No nothing.

White noise.

Hey, dumbass, one cannot lose an argument when one is the only person making an argument. You dimwits have been refuted on every point.

Self-Proclaimed Victory Laps. How precious. You even figured out that the amount of "pwnage" is directly proportional to the number of "LOLs". You really are a gem.

The irony here is that you claim that we are the "stupid" ones. You aren't dealing with rubes. If you have "clobbered" me, it would be readily apparent to the people on the thread. You wouldn't have to make a persuasive argument about it.

I am still waiting for you to answer a very simple proposition: demonstrate how ID is falsifiable.

It was my opening challenge to you, and you continually avoid it.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Blah blah blah blah blah.

The theoretical mechanism of natural selection does not compose complex machines by systematically stripping them of their parts, instead it must build them without a blueprint and do so in a sea of competing precursors, once again, vying against conservation. It's not the other way around. Miller can illustrate the alternate functions of degraded mousetraps all he wants, that does not demonstrate that the mechanisms of evolutionary theory are the cause of the comprehensive functions of complex integrated systems.

Beyond your endless philosophical prattle, what's your theory? Site the research backing it. Show me how the Pasteurian law of biogenesis, for example, has been falsified. Good luck with that.

You can start discussing the science, beginning with the Miller-Urey experiments, or you can have my contempt for your pretensions and empty rhetoric.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

No altering quote-Meister
No science! Nothing.




EDIT
Okay, no altering, instead geauxtohell's blather amounts to "blah blah blah blah blah."

 

[geauxtohell]

Blah blah blah blah blah.

I suppose altering my quotes are easier then addressing my words. You obviously aren't being deliberately dishonest in doing so, but you are being deliberately obtuse.

I don't know which is worse.

I'll pay you more courtesy.

The theoretical mechanism of natural selection does not compose complex machines by systematically stripping them of their parts, instead it must build them without a blueprint and do so in a sea of competing precursors, once again, vying against conservation. It's not the other way around. Miller can illustrate the alternate functions of degraded mousetraps all he wants, that does not demonstrate that the mechanisms of evolutionary theory are the cause of the comprehensive functions of complex integrated systems.

Again you display a logical fallacy is by stating in essence: "if it's not your way, it has to be mine." Even if you disproved natural selection as we know it (sans designer), that doesn't equate to your view point automatically being true. Miller was simply using an easy illustration to demonstrate a much more complex notion that is highly supported by data and evidence, much as my genetics instructor used a phone cord to demonstrate positive and negative super coiling of DNA.

Furthermore, and again, your objections are not backed with any sort of quantifiable evidence. It basically boils down to a matter of your opinion.

Your opinion loses any sort of academic weight as it leaves your mouth.

Beyond your endless philosophical prattle, what's your theory? Site the research backing it.

We can start here:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Genetics-John-Maynard-Smith/dp/0198502311/ref=cm_lmf_tit_3/188-9616898-2329604]Amazon.com: Evolutionary Genetics (9780198502319): John Maynard Smith: Books[/ame]

Or you can go to pubmed and type in evolution and start reading any one of thousands of peer reviewed articles.

Now, dear Pot. How about you stop your philosophical prattle and answer my very simple question to you: how is Intelligent Design falsifiable?

Show me how the Pasteurian law of biogenesis, for example, has been falsified. Good luck with that.

It doesn't need to be falsified. There are just better theories that offer a better explanation than something from the 1800s.

Other than that, you guys need a new playbook.

CB000: Law of Biogenesis

Furthermore, why must you keep trying to claim that evolution is the same thing as abiogenesis?

You can start discussing the science, beginning with the Miller-Urey experiments, or you can have my contempt for your pretensions and empty rhetoric.

More abiogenesis. Simple mind, simple pleasures; I suppose.

I have no problem with Miller-Urey. I think it was a brilliant work of scientific research and they deserved the Nobel Prize for it. The larger question of just how reduced or oxidized the environment in the era of primordial goo is a major point of debate and I am not convinced that Miller-Urey had the right answer. They still moved the ball of scientific progress forward.

Once again, the fact that Miller/Urey or Darwin's theories weren't 100% accurate doesn't impeach the larger theory and it certainly doesn't equate to an automatic affirmation of your idea (whatever the hell it is).

BTW, did you notice how I actually respond to your questions? Refreshing, huh?

 

[geauxtohell]

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah

No science! Nothing.

Broken English!

Double negative!

Fail!

LOLOLOLOLOLoser.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Blah blah blah blah blah

 

[FA_Q2]

All this and I have still seen no evedence of ID Rawlings. Where is the evedence? As has been stated, proof that evolution is incorrect is NOT proof for ID. You need actual evedence for something to be a scientific theory. As of yet, there is none in the posts you have placed here.

 

[geauxtohell]

All this and I have still seen no evedence of ID Rawlings. Where is the evedence? As has been stated, proof that evolution is incorrect is NOT proof for ID. You need actual evedence for something to be a scientific theory. As of yet, there is none in the posts you have placed here.

I'd just like to see him/her attempt to answer my very simple question:

How is I.D. falsifiable?

It would be much more productive then M.D. telling us how smart he/she is.

Fear of answering a simple question doesn't bode well for the larger questions.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

All this and I have still seen no evedence of ID Rawlings. Where is the evedence? As has been stated, proof that evolution is incorrect is NOT proof for ID. You need actual evedence for something to be a scientific theory. As of yet, there is none in the posts you have placed here.

ID is religion, predicated on faith – not evidence. It can never be ‘proven.’

 

[geauxtohell]

All this and I have still seen no evedence of ID Rawlings. Where is the evedence? As has been stated, proof that evolution is incorrect is NOT proof for ID. You need actual evedence for something to be a scientific theory. As of yet, there is none in the posts you have placed here.

ID is religion, predicated on faith – not evidence. It can never be ‘proven.’

More importantly, it can't be disproven.

Thus, it can't exist within the scientific method.

A fact that M.D. obviously realizes, but keeps running away from.

 

[Woyzeck]

Greenbeard has been polite. You're being a bit of a twat.

You know how they say the first one to get angry loses an argument?

More sophistry! No science! Self-righteous piddle! And in all likelihood most of you, if not all, are leftists, too. No surprise.

No. On this thread the only person who has been polite is konradv, and I have responded to him in kind. geauxtohell never does anything but misrepresent, and has gotten clobbered for it every time. You're just too stupid to see that or too dishonest to acknowledge it. Greenbeard makes a pretense of politeness, but doesn't address the arguments at hand. He merely repeats the same thing over and over again as if bald statements were arguments. He's an arrogant, know-nothing ass, and deserves nothing but my contempt. And you are an ass-kissing piss ant, who apparently cannot talk the science either.

It's endless philosophy with you twits! Slogans in the place of argumentation or argumentation by marginalization. Same thing. No substance. No science. No nothing.

White noise.

Hey, dumbass, one cannot lose an argument when one is the only person making an argument. You dimwits have been refuted on every point.

You're logic with your insults is as flawless as your logic with evolution.

Also, hey this is a point of note. You didn't dress up your words excessively to cover up the fact your arguments don't actually make sense for once. Hemingway would feel something you could almost call pride.

 

[Greenbeard]

How is I.D. falsifiable?

It would be much more productive then M.D. telling us how smart he/she is.

Fear of answering a simple question doesn't bode well for the larger questions.

Indeed. The big questions like "what do you mean?" and "can you elaborate?" You know, the gotcha questions.

 

[geauxtohell]

How is I.D. falsifiable?

It would be much more productive then M.D. telling us how smart he/she is.

Fear of answering a simple question doesn't bode well for the larger questions.

Indeed. The big questions like "what do you mean?" and "can you elaborate?" You know, the gotcha questions.

I think M.D. was under the mistaken assumption that he was going to razzle/dazzle us out of our shoes with overly verbose posts that evoked nonsense like the metaphysical and distract us from asking him to answer very basic questions.

As I told him, he's not fooling anyone. After he realized that we weren't going to lose focus, well you can see for yourself.......

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Liars.

You've all been shown that. You've also been shown why ID is scientific. In fact, you've been told how abiogenic research has affirmed the theoretical constructs and predictions of ID, and I invited you, more than once, to discuss the specifics of that research. LOL! But we all know why you phonies evade the findings of abiogentic research, don't we?

Also, you will not acknowledge the undeniable regarding the metaphysics of science or the nature of the presupposition underlying your theory; you're merely trying to hold ID to the same materialist apriority.

Your response is to simply repeat the same questions over and over again, just like Greenbeard mindlessly repeats the same assertion over and over again. None of you ever get around to directly addressing what has been given you. You're like mindless robots. I might as well be talking to the wall.

So too-da-loo, loopy-doos!

 

[Greenbeard]

Your response is to simply repeat the same questions over and over again, just like Greenbeard mindlessly repeats the same assertion over and over again.

Not so. I specifically asked you to elaborate on your claims that ID has a scientific component. You responded by directing me to a link that confirmed what I had suggested--that it's a philosophical doctrine.

Then you became very, very upset.

 

[FA_Q2]

Liars.

You've all been shown that. You've also been shown why ID is scientific. In fact, you've been told how abiogenic research has affirmed the theoretical constructs and predictions of ID, and I invited you, more than once, to discuss the specifics of that research. LOL! But we all know why you phonies evade the findings of abiogentic research, don't we?

Also, you will not acknowledge the undeniable regarding the metaphysics of science or the nature of the presupposition underlying your theory; you're merely trying to hold ID to the same materialist apriority.

Your response is to simply repeat the same questions over and over again, just like Greenbeard mindlessly repeats the same assertion over and over again. None of you ever get around to directly addressing what has been given you. You're like mindless robots. I might as well be talking to the wall.

So too-da-loo, loopy-doos!

No, you simply looked at the evidence with a different reconstructed notion. That is not scientific. Science assumes no preconceived notions. You can claim that evolution comes with a preconceived notion though I am not convinced that is true but it does not alleviate the onus of providing proof that ID is correct or even scientific. You are jumping over the default answer of ‘I don’t know.” Id evolution is not correct, if the evidence shows that systems are too complex for single mutations, if evolution is shown to be downright impossible then I am STILL lacking evidence for ID. Do you have such evidence that does not rely on a different preconceived notion? Anything that can be considered actual evidence?

 

[Darwinist]

1. Intelligent Design is not true because there are no “real scientists” who
support it.

2. Intelligent Design is not true because it is not published in peer-reviewed
journals.

3. Intelligent Design is not true because it is a “God-of-the-gaps” argument.

4. ID is not true because it is not fully naturalistic.

5. ID is not true because it is against naturalism.

6. ID is not true because there are finches on the Galapagos Islands that
undergo cyclical variations in beak sizes, moths that are black and can hide
from birds on dark colored trees, and insects and bacteria that “evolve”
resistance to pesticides and antibiotics.

7. ID is not true because I consider myself an intelligent person, and although
I haven’t read any ID publications or really studied it very much, intelligent
people agree that ID isn’t true. Intelligent people I know (who may or may not
have studied ID) laugh at advocates of ID, and I hate being laughed at…

8. ID is not true because it is religion.

9. ID is not true because it is religiously motivated.

10. ID is not true because it has religious implications.

ID may or may not be "true," however it is not science; and it's not science because it cannot be demonstrated as a physical phenomenon even in principle.

By the way, of course ID has religious implications, owing to the assumption of a Designer. The proposition that this universe's Designer may have been mortal only pushes the question back one step, begging, "Then who was the Designer of our Designer?" So a supernatural Designer always hangs in the air around any answer that doesn't invoke it.

 

[geauxtohell]

Liars.

You've all been shown that. You've also been shown why ID is scientific. In fact, you've been told how abiogenic research has affirmed the theoretical constructs and predictions of ID, and I invited you, more than once, to discuss the specifics of that research. LOL! But we all know why you phonies evade the findings of abiogentic research, don't we?

Also, you will not acknowledge the undeniable regarding the metaphysics of science or the nature of the presupposition underlying your theory; you're merely trying to hold ID to the same materialist apriority.

Your response is to simply repeat the same questions over and over again, just like Greenbeard mindlessly repeats the same assertion over and over again. None of you ever get around to directly addressing what has been given you. You're like mindless robots. I might as well be talking to the wall.

So too-da-loo, loopy-doos!

We repeat ourselves because you refuse to acknowledge or answer our questions. Even though we are more than willing to answer yours.

Show how I.D. can be falsified.

Otherwise, you aren't impressing anyone with your temper tantrums.