(May 29, 2014 at 12:30 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Lol. That's it? Copypasta from an Intelligent Design website claiming ID is science?

The point of the quote was to define the concept we are talking about. If we are talking about the concept of the selfish gene....wouldn't we quote Dawkins book, The Selfish Gene?

Your criticism here is utterly ridiculous.

(May 29, 2014 at 12:30 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(May 29, 2014 at 12:05 pm)Heywood Wrote: Mycoplasm Laboratorium is a living thing that has certain features that are best explained by an intelligent cause.

It's also laboratory created by humans. Funny you can't seem to find a similar example in nature.

I don't need to find a similar example in nature to prove the concept that certain features of universe are intelligently designed. If abiogenesis is created in a lab, you don't need to observe it in nature to say it exists. You don't need to observe it in nature to be justified in looking for it in nature. Are atheists so afraid of the possibility of an intellect behind creation that they are compelled to try to shut down the idea of looking for evidence of such an intellect?

(May 29, 2014 at 12:30 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(May 29, 2014 at 12:05 pm)Heywood Wrote: YWho is to say the bacteria flagellum wasn't designed? Just because a pathway was found that showed it could have evolved doesn't mean that it did evolve.

Except we have substantial evidence it did evolve.

Where is this substantial evidence? Have we replicated its evolution in the lab? If so I would be very interested in reading about it. Right now, as far as I know, only a pathway by which it could have evolved has been suggested. I wouldn't call a proposed pathway by which it could have evolved to be substantial evidence that it did in fact evolve.

(May 29, 2014 at 1:05 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 29, 2014 at 12:30 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Lol. That's it? Copypasta from an Intelligent Design website claiming ID is science?

The point of the quote was to define the concept we are talking about. If we are talking about the concept of the selfish gene....wouldn't we quote Dawkins book, The Selfish Gene?

Your criticism here is utterly ridiculous.

Irrelevant. Your response was to someone stating ID doesn't qualify as a scientific theory, you responded with a quote from an ID website claiming ID is a scientific theory.

(May 29, 2014 at 12:30 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: It's also laboratory created by humans. Funny you can't seem to find a similar example in nature.

(May 29, 2014 at 1:05 pm)Heywood Wrote: I don't need to find a similar example in nature to prove the concept that certain features of universe are intelligently designed. If abiogenesis is created in a lab, you don't need to observe it in nature to say it exists. You don't need to observe it in nature to be justified in looking for it in nature. Are atheists so afraid of the possibility of an intellect behind creation that they are compelled to try to shut down the idea of looking for evidence of such an intellect?

This has nothing to do with atheism. You advance the claim that natural organisms are intelligently designed, yet the only example of this claimed intelligent design is from a laboratory setting.

Neither atheism nor science advance any such claims, and you have not only failed to support the claims of ID, you've demonstrated how they are even more improbable by giving an example of an intelligently designed organism unlike anything witnessed in nature.

(May 29, 2014 at 12:30 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Except we have substantial evidence it did evolve.

(May 29, 2014 at 1:05 pm)Heywood Wrote: Where is this substantial evidence? Have we replicated its evolution in the lab? If so I would be very interested in reading about it. Right now, as far as I know, only a pathway by which it could have evolved has been suggested. I wouldn't call a proposed pathway by which it could have evolved to be substantial evidence that it did in fact evolve.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13...4dwsIm9LCQ

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/d...ticle.html

http://evolutionfaq.com

http://www.microbemagazine.org/index.php...Itemid=674

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/w...agella.htm

http://youtube.com/watch?v=a_5FToP_mMY

(May 29, 2014 at 1:49 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: This has nothing to do with atheism. You advance the claim that natural organisms are intelligently designed, yet the only example of this claimed intelligent design is from a laboratory setting.

Neither atheism nor science advance any such claims, and you have not only failed to support the claims of ID, you've demonstrated how they are even more improbable by giving an example of an intelligently designed organism unlike anything witnessed in nature.

Big negative.

I advance the claim that natural organism could be intelligently designed. I don't believe they are, but I acknowledge they could be. I also believe it is a perfectly valid line of inquiry to look for evidence of such design and that such inquiry is still science even if it turns out to be fruitless.

(May 29, 2014 at 1:49 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(May 29, 2014 at 1:05 pm)Heywood Wrote: Where is this substantial evidence? Have we replicated its evolution in the lab? If so I would be very interested in reading about it. Right now, as far as I know, only a pathway by which it could have evolved has been suggested. I wouldn't call a proposed pathway by which it could have evolved to be substantial evidence that it did in fact evolve.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13...4dwsIm9LCQ

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/d...ticle.html

http://evolutionfaq.com

http://www.microbemagazine.org/index.php...Itemid=674

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/w...agella.htm

http://youtube.com/watch?v=a_5FToP_mMY

Your claim was we have substantial evidence that the bacterial flagellum did in fact evolve. You were asked to provide evidence of your claim. You failed miserably because these links you provided only suggest that the flagellum could have evolved....not that it did evolve. You have provided evidence for what you and I already agreed upon...that the flagellum could evolve. But your claim went beyond that....you claimed we have evidence it did evolve.

Do you have such evidence?

(May 29, 2014 at 2:16 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 29, 2014 at 1:49 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: This has nothing to do with atheism. You advance the claim that natural organisms are intelligently designed, yet the only example of this claimed intelligent design is from a laboratory setting.

Neither atheism nor science advance any such claims, and you have not only failed to support the claims of ID, you've demonstrated how they are even more improbable by giving an example of an intelligently designed organism unlike anything witnessed in nature.

Big negative.

I advance the claim that natural organism could be intelligently designed. I don't believe they are, but I acknowledge they could be. I also believe it is a perfectly valid line of inquiry to look for evidence of such design and that such inquiry is still science even if it turns out to be fruitless.

Again, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Science looks for evidence to form hypotheses to test, and refine into theories.

Science does not care what you believe, or what I believe, or what anyone else believes. It does not advance a belief system, it only deals in evidence.

Unlike ID, It does not discard empirical evidence based on a belief system, it starts with empirical evidence and then seeks to understand that evidence.

Furthermore, any scientist able to turn biology on its' head by demonstrating a natural organism is irreducibly complex would be set for life, win the Nobel prize, and would acquire grant money from numerous sources.

(May 29, 2014 at 1:49 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13...4dwsIm9LCQ

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/d...ticle.html

http://evolutionfaq.com

http://www.microbemagazine.org/index.php...Itemid=674

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/w...agella.htm

http://youtube.com/watch?v=a_5FToP_mMY

(May 29, 2014 at 2:16 pm)Heywood Wrote: Your claim was we have substantial evidence that the bacterial flagellum did in fact evolve. You were asked to provide evidence of your claim. You failed miserably because these links you provided only suggest that the flagellum could have evolved....not that it did evolve. You have provided evidence for what you and I already agreed upon...that the flagellum could evolve. But your claim went beyond that....you claimed we have evidence it did evolve.

Do you have such evidence?

My claim was that there is no evidence the bacterial flagellum was intelligently designed, let alone for "intelligent design" appearing anywhere in nature and far more evidence supporting it is an evolved organelle.

Twist and shift the burden of proof as much as you like to support your argument from ignorance, but you still have yet to demonstrate the theory of ID, mechanism of ID, and provide even a sliver of evidence in comparison to the log mansion that is scientific observation and explanatory power of evolutionary principles in biology, medicine, and every other natural science.

You didn't view a single link, did you?

(May 29, 2014 at 2:41 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(May 29, 2014 at 2:16 pm)Heywood Wrote: Your claim was we have substantial evidence that the bacterial flagellum did in fact evolve. You were asked to provide evidence of your claim. You failed miserably because these links you provided only suggest that the flagellum could have evolved....not that it did evolve. You have provided evidence for what you and I already agreed upon...that the flagellum could evolve. But your claim went beyond that....you claimed we have evidence it did evolve.

Do you have such evidence?

My claim was that there is no evidence the bacterial flagellum was intelligently designed, let alone for "intelligent design" appearing anywhere in nature and far more evidence supporting it is an evolved organelle.

Twist and shift the burden of proof as much as you like to support your argument from ignorance, but you still have yet to demonstrate the theory of ID, mechanism of ID, and provide even a sliver of evidence in comparison to the log mansion that is scientific observation and explanatory power of evolutionary principles in biology, medicine, and every other natural science.

You didn't view a single link, did you?

Your claim was this:

(May 29, 2014 at 12:30 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Except we have substantial evidence it did evolve.

Now you are claiming something else. Do you disavow your first claim?

(May 29, 2014 at 1:49 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13...4dwsIm9LCQ

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/d...ticle.html

http://evolutionfaq.com

http://www.microbemagazine.org/index.php...Itemid=674

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/w...agella.htm

http://youtube.com/watch?v=a_5FToP_mMY

You didn't view a single link, did you?

Here's a new one:

Quote:"Evolution is cleverer than you are."

Orgel's Second Rule is intended as a rejoinder to the argument by lack of imagination. In general, this rule expresses the sometimes experienced fact that "trial and error" strategies are better than centralized intelligent human planning.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgel's_rule

(May 29, 2014 at 2:53 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(May 29, 2014 at 1:49 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13...4dwsIm9LCQ

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/d...ticle.html

http://evolutionfaq.com

http://www.microbemagazine.org/index.php...Itemid=674

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/w...agella.htm

http://youtube.com/watch?v=a_5FToP_mMY

You didn't view a single link, did you?

Here's a new one:

Quote:"Evolution is cleverer than you are."

Orgel's Second Rule is intended as a rejoinder to the argument by lack of imagination. In general, this rule expresses the sometimes experienced fact that "trial and error" strategies are better than centralized intelligent human planning.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgel's_rule

Yes I looked at some....not all. They all suggest the flagellum could have evolved. Something which I acknowledged early on and never disputed.

Do you disavow your original claim that we have substantial evidence the flagellum did indeed evolve?

(May 29, 2014 at 2:58 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 29, 2014 at 2:53 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: You didn't view a single link, did you?

Here's a new one:


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgel's_rule

Yes I looked at some....not all. They all suggest the flagellum could have evolved. Something which I acknowledged early on and never disputed.

Do you disavow your original claim that we have substantial evidence the flagellum did indeed evolve?

View the links.

Do you have substantial evidence it did not evolve? What is it?

Can you support the position that it could not have evolved? What is your evidence?

You haven't provided any evidence at all. You keep asking for more evidence, I provide it for you, you glance at half of it, knock the rest off your tray and start bawling that you want more evidence.



Well, what do you want? If you're hungry, eat it instead of smearing it around and throwing it on the floor!

Where's the evidence for your claim?

(May 29, 2014 at 3:07 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(May 29, 2014 at 2:58 pm)Heywood Wrote: Yes I looked at some....not all. They all suggest the flagellum could have evolved. Something which I acknowledged early on and never disputed.

Do you disavow your original claim that we have substantial evidence the flagellum did indeed evolve?

View the links.

Do you have substantial evidence it did not evolve? What is it?

Can you support the position that it could not have evolved? What is your evidence?

You haven't provided any evidence at all. You keep asking for more evidence, I provide it for you, you glance at half of it, knock the rest off your tray and start bawling that you want more evidence.

Well, what do you want? If you're hungry, eat it instead of smearing it around and throwing it on the floor!

Where's the evidence for your claim?

I see you are unwilling to answer the question if you disavow the original claim you made and would rather just change your claim and hope nobody notices.......Rather dishonest of you.

Perhaps you can come up with a quote of me making a claim that I did not substantiate.....just as I came up with a quote of you making a claim you did not substantiate. Just one quote from me please. If you are going to accuse me of making unsubstantiated claims....please give me the claim in quote form so that I might defend it....I gave you that courtesy....and you should extend the same. To do otherwise is simply underhandedness on your part.

(May 28, 2014 at 6:36 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote: Is intelligent design a scientific theory?Yes.

The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/

That's not science. Even if you demonstrate "if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI" this does not mean "If we see high levels of CSI it must have been designed".

This is your logic applied to flying animals: "if an animal can fly, it will have wings" therefore when we observe an animal with wings, it must be able to fly. This of course doesn't work in the case of flightless birds.