Discrimination On Scientists That Back ID

[SpidermanTuba]

Look at the bolded portion. Just look at it. That is why you get flamed so much. I was thinking out a civil response right up until I saw that, but I won't bother, knowing that if God himself dropped out of the sky and showed you, step by step, exactly how he created the Earth, you'd just sit there and gripe his ear off about fossil record this and mutation that and how he's such an idiot for believing anything else.

Hey, you're the one willfully ignoring the scientific evidence because you don't like the conlcusions it leads to.


And don't forget to define "irreducably complex" for us.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

ID claims that life on Earth could not have arisen by chance because it is irreducably complex, so it must have been created by a Creator, or as they like to phrase it for the purposes of getting it into our school, "Intelligent Designer"


Assuming this is true, it logically follows that the Intelligent Designer itself could not have possibly arisen by chance, and hence must have been designed by some other designer.

Assuming this is true, it logically follows that the Intelligent Designer' s Designer itself could not have possibly arisen by chance, and hence must have been designed by some other designer.

Assuming this is true, it logically follows that the Intelligent Designer' s Designer's Designer itself could not have possibly arisen by chance, and hence must have been designed by some other designer.

Assuming this is true, it logically follows that the Intelligent Designer' s Designer's Designer's Designer itself could not have possibly arisen by chance, and hence must have been designed by some other designer.

Assuming this is true, it logically follows that the Intelligent Designer' s Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer itself could not have possibly arisen by chance, and hence must have been designed by some other designer.

Assuming this is true, it logically follows that the Intelligent Designer' s Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer itself could not have possibly arisen by chance, and hence must have been designed by some other designer.

Assuming this is true, it logically follows that the Intelligent Designer' s Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer itself could not have possibly arisen by chance, and hence must have been designed by some other designer.

Assuming this is true, it logically follows that the Intelligent Designer' s Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer itself could not have possibly arisen by chance, and hence must have been designed by some other designer.

Assuming this is true, it logically follows that the Intelligent Designer' s Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer itself could not have possibly arisen by chance, and hence must have been designed by some other designer.

Assuming this is true, it logically follows that the Intelligent Designer' s Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer itself could not have possibly arisen by chance, and hence must have been designed by some other designer.

Assuming this is true, it logically follows that the Intelligent Designer' s Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer itself could not have possibly arisen by chance, and hence must have been designed by some other designer.

Assuming this is true, it logically follows that the Intelligent Designer' s Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer itself could not have possibly arisen by chance, and hence must have been designed by some other designer.

Assuming this is true, it logically follows that the Intelligent Designer' s Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer itself could not have possibly arisen by chance, and hence must have been designed by some other designer.

Assuming this is true, it logically follows that the Intelligent Designer' s Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer itself could not have possibly arisen by chance, and hence must have been designed by some other designer.

Assuming this is true, it logically follows that the Intelligent Designer' s Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer itself could not have possibly arisen by chance, and hence must have been designed by some other designer.

Assuming this is true, it logically follows that the Intelligent Designer' s Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer itself could not have possibly arisen by chance, and hence must have been designed by some other designer.

Assuming this is true, it logically follows that the Intelligent Designer' s Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer itself could not have possibly arisen by chance, and hence must have been designed by some other designer.

Assuming this is true, it logically follows that the Intelligent Designer' s Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer itself could not have possibly arisen by chance, and hence must have been designed by some other designer.

Assuming this is true, it logically follows that the Intelligent Designer' s Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer itself could not have possibly arisen by chance, and hence must have been designed by some other designer.

Assuming this is true, it logically follows that the Intelligent Designer' s Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer's Designer itself could not have possibly arisen by chance, and hence must have been designed by some other designer.

and so on to infinity.




am I the only one who sees the logical problem with this?

 

[Annie]

Probably not, but you are the only one leaving one thread for another. I'm merging them.

 

[dmp]

ID claims that life on Earth could not have arisen by chance because it is irreducably complex, so it must have been created by a Creator, or as they like to phrase it for the purposes of getting it into our school, "Intelligent Designer"


Assuming this is true, it logically follows that the Intelligent Designer itself could not have possibly arisen by chance, and hence must have been designed by some other designer.
...

and so on to infinity.

am I the only one who sees the logical problem with this?

No - Everyone sees how illogical your argument is.

 

[Powerman]

Hey, you're the one willfully ignoring the scientific evidence because you don't like the conlcusions it leads to.


And don't forget to define "irreducably complex" for us.

Irreducible Complexity as defined by Behe who is a proponent of ID:

a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.


That's funny because I had my appendix removed a couple years ago and I'm still alive. This sounds like the epitome of nonsense to me.

 

[dmp]

Irreducible Complexity as defined by Behe who is a proponent of ID:

a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.


That's funny because I had my appendix removed a couple years ago and I'm still alive. This sounds like the epitome of nonsense to me.

Except your appexdix is a poor example...

 

[Powerman]

Except your appexdix is a poor example...

Obviously. So maybe you can explain what he actually meant. Since what he actually meant didn't apply to my situation. Even though he said if you remove even one of the parts it won't work.

 

[Hobbit]

Except your appexdix is a poor example...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html

The appendix isn't necessarily useless. Though this article does admit that a use has not been proven, a growing number of scientists believe it to be a part of the gastric immune system, due to its high concentration of lymphatic tissue, its constant state of inflammation (similar to tonsils) and the fact that appendix infections are so violent. Remember, 50 years ago, tonsils were thought to be useless, something later proven false.

[shameless plug for "The Boondocks"]It's like Samuel L. Jackson said on "The Boondocks." "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense. Just because you can't prove it's there doesn't mean it's not. You see, there are known knowns and known unknowns, but there are also unknown unknowns, things we don't know we don't know...[/shameless plug for "The Boondocks"]

 

[Powerman]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html

The appendix isn't necessarily useless. Though this article does admit that a use has not been proven, a growing number of scientists believe it to be a part of the gastric immune system, due to its high concentration of lymphatic tissue, its constant state of inflammation (similar to tonsils) and the fact that appendix infections are so violent. Remember, 50 years ago, tonsils were thought to be useless, something later proven false.

Well I've had my Tonsils and Adenoids removed as well so that's at least 3 parts. I'm still in perfectly good health. Guess those organs weren't so vital afterall. By the way the appendix is cited as most as a vestigial organ and it was thought that it was used much earlier in our history to help us digest different foods that we no longer eat.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

No - Everyone sees how illogical your argument is.

Except you, because you can't explain why it is illogical.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

Define "function".

 

[SpidermanTuba]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html

The appendix isn't necessarily useless. Though this article does admit that a use has not been proven, a growing number of scientists believe it to be a part of the gastric immune system, due to its high concentration of lymphatic tissue, its constant state of inflammation (similar to tonsils) and the fact that appendix infections are so violent. Remember, 50 years ago, tonsils were thought to be useless, something later proven false.

[shameless plug for "The Boondocks"]It's like Samuel L. Jackson said on "The Boondocks." "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense. Just because you can't prove it's there doesn't mean it's not. You see, there are known knowns and known unknowns, but there are also unknown unknowns, things we don't know we don't know...[/shameless plug for "The Boondocks"]

Hey Hobit, are you going to define "irreducably complex" for us, or can piney woods hicks like ourselves simply not understand such phrases which are uttered from the intellectual elite like yourself?

 

[HorhayAtAMD]

Okay, so now you are for throwing out discussion within the scientific community? I'm not pro-ID, certainly not within the science curriculum. With that said, I do believe that academic publications should be free forums for issues of their time. You already said you didn't read, just condemn-so let's all raise one to Joe McCarthy, but from the left.

Funny how you are so quick to join the sheep! I'm much more surprised at Bully, who normally is quite thoughtful.

I would suggest that the scientific community is for discussing hypotheses developed through the scientific method. Since ID has not used the scientific method to come up with its hypothesis, the scientific community has no obligation to discuss it. It doesn't mean ID is wrong, it just means it isn't science. 200 years ago, I could have said "people die from tiny little things in the air that none of us can see". I would have been right but my statement wouldn't be scientific unless I offered some falsifiable, repeatable proof of my statement. Since there is nothing anyone could ever do to scientifically disprove ID, I'll take my previous statement one step further and say that the scientific community is completely unable to discuss it.

 

[Powerman]

I would suggest that the scientific community is for discussing hypotheses developed through the scientific method. Since ID has not used the scientific method to come up with its hypothesis, the scientific community has no obligation to discuss it. It doesn't mean ID is wrong, it just means it isn't science. 200 years ago, I could have said "people die from tiny little things in the air that none of us can see". I would have been right but my statement wouldn't be scientific unless I offered some falsifiable, repeatable proof of my statement. Since there is nothing anyone could ever do to scientifically disprove ID, I'll take my previous statement one step further and say that the scientific community is completely unable to discuss it.

I didn't realize they had other rational people on this forum. It's nice to hear a fresh honest assessment of ID. Even if they are right there is no way to scientifically prove it. Thank you for making sense. Where are the rest of the thinking people on this forum?

 

[Powerman]

Define "function".

I'm not the one who came up with the bullshit. As I've stated....I've had my appendix, tonsils, and adenoids removed. According to the theory of "irreducible complexity" by the definition I found I shouldn't be able to survive or operate. But I'm still here. Or did this guy mean something different?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Hey Hobit, are you going to define "irreducably complex" for us, or can piney woods hicks like ourselves simply not understand such phrases which are uttered from the intellectual elite like yourself?

Hey Hobit - still waiting. What the hell does "irreducably complex" mean?


Are we to conclude that ID is wrong simply because it makes up words it has no definition for?



Alright - dmp has supplied the Wikipedia definition. So I guess we'll go with that until someone can come up with a better one.

"Behe argued that there are biochemical systems which are "irreducibly complex" because he saw no way in which these systems could be broken down into smaller functioning systems."

Read an anatomy book.

 

[Powerman]

So does anyone here really know what irreducibly complex means? I see the term thrown around. DMP provided us with a definition via wikipedia but I don't see how this makes evolution impossible. Someone needs to explain this logic to me. I hope as much as the term gets thrown around that someone actually understands what it's all about. I haven't heard an explanation yet.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

So does anyone here really know what irreducibly complex means? I see the term thrown around. DMP provided us with a definition via wikipedia but I don't see how this makes evolution impossible. Someone needs to explain this logic to me. I hope as much as the term gets thrown around that someone actually understands what it's all about. I haven't heard an explanation yet.

Here's an idea. How about you explain what part you don't understand. Walk us through the logic you use, without offending anyone, and then maybe someone can help you out.

 

[Powerman]

Here's an idea. How about you explain what part you don't understand. Walk us through the logic you use, without offending anyone, and then maybe someone can help you out.

Well people constantly throw out the term irreducible complexity and say that it disproves evolution. I've read and understand the definition and don't understand how it disproves evolution. If anything the article from Wikipedia clearly stated that it has been disproved and no one in mainstream science takes this guy seriously. Irreducible complexity is apparently a farse.

 

[Hobbit]

Hey Hobit, are you going to define "irreducably complex" for us, or can piney woods hicks like ourselves simply not understand such phrases which are uttered from the intellectual elite like yourself?

Hobbit has 2 b's, and I never mentioned irreducible complexity anywhere in that post. The post was simply to throw off the notion that the appendix is a totally useless anachranism. Learn to read...and spell.