Algor
Well-known member
He's right, tho, no matter how you criticise him: you don't post science. You just giggle and claim refutation. It's not the same thing.
Pixie is wiping the floor with you, and it is almost (almost) painful to watch.
Suppose the Resurrection was proven false, what would explain the Gospels?
- Thread starter Whatsisface
- Start date
Pixie is wiping the floor with you, and it is almost (almost) painful to watch.
Martin23233
Active member
So you don't understand Irreducible Complexity...that is fine... once one does it exposes their evolutionary mindset to just another reason the theory is dying (basically dead)
Some explanation behind the science of ID:
Electric Skeptic
Well-known member
Everybody understands so-called 'irreducible complexity' and knows that it's a fraud.
And, surprisingly, the world's biologists don't seem to know that evolutionary theory is "dying (basically dead)". They do, however, know that creationists have been claiming that for over a century...and evolutionary theory continues.
There is no science of ID and that article doesn't help create/establish it.
Algor
Well-known member
Did you click on the links I provided? Kinda funny, isn't it?
Martin23233
Active member
More to chew on for the fading Evo-Devos:
More and more scientist abandoning evolution, that’s about as close to evolution being unsettled as one gets… but there will be more;
https://qccsa.org/evolutionists-are-leaving-evolution/
https://thenewamerican.com/over-1-000-scientists-openly-dissent-from-evolution-theory/
https://christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html
More and more scientist abandoning evolution, that’s about as close to evolution being unsettled as one gets… but there will be more;
https://qccsa.org/evolutionists-are-leaving-evolution/
https://thenewamerican.com/over-1-000-scientists-openly-dissent-from-evolution-theory/
https://christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html
Martin23233
Active member
Some explanation behind the science of ID:
https://evolutionnews.org/2021/07/answering-an-objection-you-cant-measure-intelligent-design/
A higher level over view of why CSI is key to design detection
https://www.discovery.org/a/9761/
Excellent rebuttal that what ID is and why is it ‘not’ Creationism as so many feel threatened to grasp:
https://www.discovery.org/a/3218/
Some places where ID is in use by several complex science fields. (but it fails on one key point of ID – a designer does NOT have to be identified… a designer might never be able to be identified)
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligentdesign.html
I suppose SETI is a clear example of a scientific endeavor for searching for life outside our sphere... it uses the same ID components to try to detect the difference between natural noise or intelligent noise that is detected ... in fact it was fooled a few times by our own noise that they thought was some other intelligence... but nah it was just us. ID is no different in how it uses science to determine if things are known/natural or something of intelligence that nature can't explain.
https://evolutionnews.org/2021/07/answering-an-objection-you-cant-measure-intelligent-design/
A higher level over view of why CSI is key to design detection
https://www.discovery.org/a/9761/
Excellent rebuttal that what ID is and why is it ‘not’ Creationism as so many feel threatened to grasp:
https://www.discovery.org/a/3218/
Some places where ID is in use by several complex science fields. (but it fails on one key point of ID – a designer does NOT have to be identified… a designer might never be able to be identified)
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligentdesign.html
I suppose SETI is a clear example of a scientific endeavor for searching for life outside our sphere... it uses the same ID components to try to detect the difference between natural noise or intelligent noise that is detected ... in fact it was fooled a few times by our own noise that they thought was some other intelligence... but nah it was just us. ID is no different in how it uses science to determine if things are known/natural or something of intelligence that nature can't explain.
Algor
Well-known member
And yet evolutionary biology is alive and well and publishing actual science like crazy and you are citing...blog posts....... LOL. Don't you get tired of losing?
Nouveau
Well-known member
I'd be more interested in how to identify the absence of conscious design, as that is where ID fails as science - it just isn't falsifiable.
Martin23233
Active member
More on why Darwinists are clearly wrong:
Martin23233
Active member
LOL more and more states are now passing more laws allowing the teaching of real facts and alternative theories.... LOL Don't you get tired or losing ? Gotta love better science eh?
Algor
Well-known member
So when do you think the ID guys are going to publish any? (I mean, other than on blogs run by chronic grifters?)
Of the two of them, I get tired. I'll leave the losing to people who have to cite blog posts.
I do indeed. That's the whole point.
Tiburon
Well-known member
Pretty soon they'll revoke womens right to vote and reintroduce slavery.
A Specific Pattern of Commonality Shows Descent
So where is the explanation?the chromosomal blocks that match with humans ..which in most cases don't match with 'most fish' I think the lungfish has genome comparisons that put them in the same net.Human and dolphin genomes
By Charlotte Dudal - 42832845 Humans and dolphins, what do these two animals have in common? You might think that the only thing t...biol1020-2012-1.blogspot.com
Evo-devos suppose that this commonness has to do with both dolphins and humans were air breathing mammals... someday they'll find the evidence for it. ID identifies common design for common purposes. the old basic building blocks designers all use in different areas.
Again I answer again you deny and shift the question... too funny how you keep misrepresenting
Why do dolphins have DNA closer to humans than to fish? All I see is you saying "common design for common purposes", but if that is true, we would expect dolphins to have DNA closer to fishes.
Your explanation leads to the opposite of what we see. Thus, we can conclude that you are wrong.
The Specific Pattern of Commonality is about the difference and the similarities.
Dolphin DNA has similarities to human and to fish DNA. It also has differences. What we are discussing is why it has more similarities to human DNA than to fish DNA.
You explanation is "common design for common purposes", but if that is true, we would expect dolphins to have DNA closer to fishes.
You Reject Evolution Because It Contradicts Your Faith
Firstly, bear in mind that "the evo-devo faithful" are people of many religions, including, Christianity and no religion. Therefore this cannot be a faith position.
Secondly, I will remind you that for each assorted scientist and engineer who is "bailing" from evolution, there are over a hundred scientists who are experts in biology and still accept it.
Thirdly, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a huge problem for you, because your biggest argument is gaps in the fossil record.
And fourthly and lastly, you have failed to address the actual issue, which is that you reject evolution because it is a materialist view, and not because of the evidence.
What Do You Even Believe?
I earlier said:
Like there is a practical difference!
Look at your own theory; it is one big hole! I have repeated asked you for the mechanism for ID, and you repeatedly dodge the question. Because ID has no mechanism at all!
Now you need a new excuse to dodge it.
I earlier said:
And do you think God created each species in isolation?
Or do you believe is common descent?
You have spent post after post arguing against common descent, and also advocating front-loading, apparently without realising front-loading implies common descent - at least from a ancestor over 500 million years ago - which makes us related to, say, squid.
Have you decided which you want to go for? Or are you going to continue to oscillate between the two?
No it does not. There is an abundance of evidence for evolution from genetics, biochemistry, palaeontology and other disciplines too.
No ID Science
So show me the ID science.
As far as I know, the only people claiming to be doing ID science were Douglas Axe and Anne Granger at BioLogic, both of whom have now left. ID is dead.
So where is it?
Why are you not citing ID papers in your posts? In fact the only science papers I recall you citing are the one that had a statement by the authors at the front stating clearly they support evolution, and the dog/wolf paper, which also supported evolution.
Have you cited any ID science?
Chimps Closer to Humans than to Gorillas
I am putting this in its own post because the way you are dodging this basically tells us you know creationism/ID is failed, you just will not admit it.I earlier said:
And again you miss the bit about gorillas, even though it was in bold.
In fact, I put "than it is to gorilla DNA" in bold EIGHT times in my post, and you managed to ignore it every time. The word "gorilla" is absent from your entire post! You make absolutely no attempt to address the actual issue.
Why is that? You simply cannot have missed it. You know full well what I am asking, and you are deliberately dodging the question, because creationism (and ID is creationism) has no answer.
Just to clarify, no one is saying chimps are the same as humans. Of course there are differences, but there are less differences between chimp and human DNA than there is between chimp and gorilla DNA.
Evolution has indeed scientifically studied the "D-i-f-f-e-r-e-n-c-e-s", and can explain why there are less "D-i-f-f-e-r-e-n-c-e-s" between chimp and man DNA, than there are between chimp and gorilla DNA.
Creationism and ID just pretends it is not so. Hence, you contrived to ignore "than it is to gorilla DNA" in bold EIGHT times.
Chimps Closer to Humans than to Gorillas (Continued)
So what we expect:
- From evolution: chimps are closer related to humans, so chimps will be genetically closer to humans than to gorillas
- From ID: humans are really quite different to chimps, so chimps will be genetically closer to gorillas than to humans
No it has not, because you have never addressed the gorilla side of it.
No it has not, because you have never addressed the gorilla side of it.
But you have never addressed the gorilla side of it.
So what we expect:
- From evolution: chimps are closer related to humans, so chimps will be genetically closer to humans than to gorillas
- From ID: humans are really quite different to chimps, so chimps will be genetically closer to gorillas than to humans
Guess what? Evolution is right.
Gaps in the Fossil Record Do NOT Refute Evolution
I earlier said:
But your answer failed to actually mention gaps in the fossil record.
Furthermore, you refute your own argument:
Post #1848: "I'll clearly admit that absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence."
Post 1854: "you are slowly catching on.. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
The fact is that you flip-flop from one to the other, just as you do for whether we should believe the majority. If you want to believe absence of evidence is not evidence of absence one moment, you will say that. If you want to believe the reverse, that absence of fossils is actually evidence they do not exist, you will say that.
How can they both be true? They cannot, but that is not the point. They are both convenient, and creationists post what is convenient, not necessarily what is true.
I earlier said:
So why do we see all the dodging with regards to gorilla DNA?
The same truth is that creationism/ID cannot explain the pattern, as the specific example of chimp DNA being closer to human DNA than to gorilla DNA clearly shows.
You know that Martin. You have carefully avoiding mentioning gorillas, but I know you must that seen the word in my post, as it was there EIGHYT times in bold. You know creationism/ID cannot explain the pattern.
Which raises the question; how can you honestly say this is "Already answered above"?
Specific pattern of commonality in amino acids sequences such as cytochrome-c
And I have already exposed you on this.
I have now gone a step further, and started a thread to maximise that exposure.
Do-While Jones and the Pattern of Differences in Cytochrome-C
Not quite Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.. A guy who insists he is an IDist and not a creationism (like there is a difference) is citing a paper by Do-While Jones to refute evolution, and more specifically the evidence from cytochrome amino acids sequences, when comparing differences...
forums.carm.org
Counting to Twelve
I earlier said:
No. I pointed out there were two extra, which makes a total of twelve.
There were twelve question - including the two extra you seem unable to find, despite asking them, and the three duplicates.
It is kind of sad you cannot count them.
Front-loading is... Whatever You Want It To Be
I earlier said:
All I see is dodging.
But that is okay, I think at this stage is is clear you do not know what front-loading is, given you are so insistent common descent is wrong.
In reality:
- You have confirmed that you do not actually understasnd what front-loading is, given your reperated attempts to arguue against common descent
- I have said from the start that a pre-existing gene is required for co-option
Readily refuted here:
Do-While Jones and the Pattern of Differences in Cytochrome-C
Not quite Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.. A guy who insists he is an IDist and not a creationism (like there is a difference) is citing a paper by Do-While Jones to refute evolution, and more specifically the evidence from cytochrome amino acids sequences, when comparing differences...
forums.carm.org
Do want to defend Do-While on that that? No? I did not think so.
I have done numerous times for numerous biological systems.
You, on the other hand, have nothing to offer from ID. No papers, no mechanisms, nothing but the most superficial of explanations.
Hundreds of thousands of biologists agree with me. Even if the electrical engineer Do-While Jones says otherwise on his personal web page.
Vitamin C Pseudogene
They are choosing to look at just one mutation of several. That one mutation is indeed common to primates and guinea pigs, suggesing it has a susceptibility. What they ignore - and ignoring data is what creationists really excel at - is all the other mutations in the gene.
All primates have the same set of mutations, which is quite different to the guinea pig apart from that one that they cherry picked.
I have linked to the article in Nature that shows that graphically at least twice. Did you read it?
ID Falsified!
No, it is constantly falsified.
And yet I linked you to a paper with exactly that.
Look up abiogenesis. It is not known, but a lot of interesting research in going on in this area.
How is that ID research going? Oh, right. The BioLogic institute has closed, and the only ID researchers have got jobs else where.
It has not stopped. I pointed this out last time.
I have linked to papers on that too.
The real question is, why are they so different, given we are genetically so close to chimps? So close that chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA.
And the follow up question: Will Martin mention gorillas in his reply? I guess not.
Martin23233
Active member
you mean publish any books? plenty out there, plenty more coming:
Essential Readings
A Scientific History and Philosophical Defense of Intelligent Design" Stephen C. Meyer "Are We Alone?" Jay W. Richards & Guillermo Gonzalez The American Spectator "Science & Design"
www.discovery.org
Excellent then.... i suppose then you call scientists losers too ... all the ones leaving evo theory.
Yep..that is the point of why so many scientist dropping evolution...and why in the last 2-3 years they are scrambling to modify it to better fit real science.
Electric Skeptic
Well-known member
No, publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals. You know, where people present actual scientific findings.you mean publish any books? plenty out there, plenty more coming:
https://www.discovery.org/a/23451/ <-- even a few kiddie ones you might be interested in.Essential Readings
A Scientific History and Philosophical Defense of Intelligent Design" Stephen C. Meyer "Are We Alone?" Jay W. Richards & Guillermo Gonzalez The American Spectator "Science & Design"
Please. Evolutionary theory continues to be the best-evidenced theory in all of science and nobody is "leaving" it.
They aren't. This is just more of the nonsense creationists have been ranting about for centuries.
Martin23233
Active member
And yet here you are... hanging in there.... 'just saying'