Does DNA prove intelligent design?

[sandor606]

It's a great tactic. "Read these books that back me up, or else you don't know what I'm talking about." However, that's not the way a debate goes. If you've read the stuff, you should be able to give us some brief summaries that support your points. We shouldn't have to read entire points just to back up your arguments. Besides, you're really just appealing to authority anyway. Also, irreducible complexity is a sham.

Go to my first post and read the excerpts that summarize the my point. I am surprised you missed it.

 

[Magic Man]

Go to my first post and read the excerpts that summarize the my point. I am surprised you missed it.

I didn't. I just re-responded to it, actually. I responded to it originally, too, but you have yet to really respond to my or anyone else's challenges to that first post.

 

[Autodidact]

There is no experimental evidence of Darwinian evolution either yet it's scientific dogma.

You are mistaken. There is both experimental and other evidence for ToE. How do you think it got accepted by science? Not by public relations.

If you consider books that, except for the conclusion, could be textbooks in universities as pop-sci then I see no reason to continue this discussion.

Who says they could be. If they could be, they would. They're not, because they couldn't be. Textbooks are based on hundreds, often thousands, of published, peer-reviewed, sound scientific research papers. That's the stuff of science.

The only reputable source for a scientific assertion is one, or preferably many, scientific research papers. I thought you knew that.

I don't understand why you claim to know so much about science, yet seem so woefully misinformed. You wouldn't be pulling our legs, would you?

 

[Autodidact]

I did that in my first post. Read it.

(fifth time) I'm sorry, I missed the published, peer-reviewed scientific research articles, and the science books. Would you just repeat those names for me? Also the many Biologists who accept ID as science? Thanks.

 

[Autodidact]

Philosophy of science is the philosophy implied in the science.

Sez you. Actually it's philosophy that's about science.

Modern science implies a designer.

So you say. I disagree, but that's O.K. Whether it does or not, any such implication is not science, which is what you, and ID claim. See the difference? It's not a quibble.

In any case, you didn't say, "philosophy implied in the science." You said, "ID is science." It isn't, as you would have admitted by now, had you any intellectual integrity. It has been my experience that the entire ID movement lacks exactly that.

 

[Autodidact]

The thing about Philosophy of Science, sandor, is that it's not science. It's philosophy. It doesn't depend on the scientific method. It's not replicable. It doesn't require a certain, specific methodology. And, to a much greater degree, it's a matter of opinion, rather than objective, consensus-based conclusions. You're entitled to your opinion. Heck, that horse's bottom, Michael Behe, is entitled to his opinion. But that's all it is, an opinion. There is not way to resolve a question, build on that progress, and move forward.

 

[sandor606]

Now... your peer reviewed article?

I'm starting to think you made it up...

wa:do

www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/ontogeny.html

I am leaving the forum - at least for a while - so this is my last post to you for now.

 

[sandor606]

The thing about Philosophy of Science, sandor, is that it's not science. It's philosophy. It doesn't depend on the scientific method. It's not replicable. It doesn't require a certain, specific methodology. And, to a much greater degree, it's a matter of opinion, rather than objective, consensus-based conclusions. You're entitled to your opinion. Heck, that horse's bottom, Michael Behe, is entitled to his opinion. But that's all it is, an opinion. There is not way to resolve a question, build on that progress, and move forward.

I think we have come to an impasse so this is my last post to you. Thank you for the stimulating discussion.

 

[sandor606]

I didn't. I just re-responded to it, actually. I responded to it originally, too, but you have yet to really respond to my or anyone else's challenges to that first post.

You re-responded to what? I looked up re-respond in the dictionary but could not find it. Anyway, I am leaving the forum at least for a while so this is my last post to you.

 

[painted wolf]

I am leaving the forum - at least for a while - so this is my last post to you for now.

Thank you for finally posting that... I'll give it a look over and post my thoughts later.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

I think we have come to an impasse so this is my last post to you. Thank you for the stimulating discussion.

I understand that this is your little way of admitting defeat, and a little way is the only way you can. Bye. I can't say the same.

 

[Magic Man]

www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/ontogeny.html

I am leaving the forum - at least for a while - so this is my last post to you for now.

I guess you might as well, if this is what you're going to give us as evidence and peer-reviewed papers.

 

[sandor606]

I understand that this is your little way of admitting defeat, and a little way is the only way you can. Bye. I can't say the same.

Whatever. Good bye.

 

[Magic Man]

You re-responded to what? I looked up re-respond in the dictionary but could not find it. Anyway, I am leaving the forum at least for a while so this is my last post to you.

Yes, I get it, you don't have to say it over and over.

Re-respond is another way of saying "respond again". It's probably not in the dictionary, but it's telling that you had to try to look it up.

I re-responded to your original post in this thread just a few minutes ago.

 

[Autodidact]

A trait that I often find on the internet (and irl) is an inability to admit error. All a person has to do to salvage their credibility is to say something like, "I misspoke. I didn't mean to say that ID is science, only that it is based on science." Or something of that nature. If, instead, they avoid answering questions, claim to have already answered them, ignore repeated polite requests to supply the answers alleged to have been provided, and, when finally faced with irrefutable arguments, just disappear, they sacrifice their credibility; their most valuable asset in a community such as this. Is it worth it, just to salvage your self-image? Not to me. But then, I'm not a theist.

 

[Magic Man]

Just for fun, here's a quote from John A. Davison, the author of that article you posted, from a forum:

I see you clowns are now deleting my comments. So what was the point in giving me this little cell I ask? I can’t even post here.
I don’t bark for Darwimps or anyone else. I spout undeniable truths with metronomic regularity to blind and deaf audiences such as those that haunt Panda’s Dislocated Thumb, the last refuge for Darwimpianism, the most idiotic and experimentally failed fabrication in human history.
I see DaveScot must be back. Welcome to the snake pit Dave. I thought you might be dead.
“Science commits suicide when she adopt a creed.” Thomas Hnery Huxley
Like hell she does Hank baby. Roll over, lift the lid and take a peek.
It’s hard to believe isn’t it?
How do you like them sauteed portabellas?

There are many more. It's entertaining reading, if anyone feels like it. Apparently, the guy has been to several different forums and been banned from them all for ridiculous behavior. Why am I not surprised?


Oh, here's the link, by the way.

 

[Magic Man]

Here's another very relevant one, actually:

There is no theory of evolution yet. A past evolution is undeniable. What we have are two major thoroughly tested and failed hypotheses, Lamarckism and Darwinism. Neither has a leg to stand on. In 1984 I proposed the semi-meiotic hypothesis which to this day has not been even acknowledged in the professional literature let alone tested in the laboratory. I was unable to find suitable material to test it myself and I am now not in a position to do so having been evicted from my laboratory in 2000 at which time I resigned from the University of Vermont. That is a matter of history and there is no need to discuss it further.

So, it seems that paper was not, in fact, peer-reviewed, or was peer-reviewed and found extremely wanting, at least. In fact, it wasn't even tested by Davison himself. That's some pretty good science.

 

[Magic Man]

Sorry, I just can't help myself, this is just too good.

Science is nothing but the discovery of what is there and what was there, both just waiting to be revealed. Darwimpianism is not science by any stretch of the imagination. It is a belief system which denies the obvious which is that there has never been a role for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny. If there had been neither could exist.

You guys should really read some of this stuff. It's hilarious.

 

[Alceste]

Thank you for finally posting that... I'll give it a look over and post my thoughts later.

wa:do

Don't waste your time, darlin'. It's not a scientific paper.

 

[Magic Man]

One last quote before I go to bed. This one's directly from the conclusion portion of the paper in the link sandor provided.

The greatest impediment to progress in the field of evolution resides
in the stubborn refusal of the Darwinians to entertain any possibility
that the living world might be subject to laws such as govern
virtually every aspect of the inanimate world. I find it fascinating
that it is the physicists who postulate God while biologists typically
remain atheists or agnostics.

What in the world does this have to do with anything? It certainly has no place in a "peer-reviewed scientific paper".