Evolutionry/religious nonsense

That was not my (or his) point. The point is that both neo-evolutionists and religious Creationism are both biased in the way they interpret the data.

I disagree with both sets of biases. I’ve said many times that I can appreciate the evolutionist's view and the theory. It is elegant to the point of seduction, as is the Creationist's view to them. (Creationist views answers questions for them that science does not answer).

It is best not to be seduced by either. This is the difference between religious Creationism and ID (my version of it, if that helps).

I think this is why our discussions don’t go anywhere. I don’t think you are able to put aside your 'evolution can explain everything and anything else is religious nonsense' filter long enough to debate it from a neutral position. Which is a shame because you're one of the few knowledgeable enough to engage in a discussion on the subject if you could.

Evolutionist is a political term, invented by those who were outraged by what Darwin and Wallace proposed. Accepting evolution by descent from common ancestors with modification through natural selection is not a political position, it is a scientific one. There is not the least similarity between that position and the creationist or the ID position. It is self-serving and deceitful for anyone from the ID crowd to consider the two positions to be equivalent.

Where's your evidence? This is a question you have consistently dodged. You have never provided one iota of evidence for the ID position.

I might say, but you're not 'one of the few', in case you thought you were.

Ive never said that evolution explains everything. What Ive really said is that ID has nothing with which to even open discussions. It is evidence-free and conclusion driven.
We have plenty of gaping holes in the various syntheses of evolution. I think Ive been quite honest and open to discuss major openings. (Convergent evolution, Darwins false assumptions of "disappearance of traits via generations" evolution of specific clades due to fossil record gaps, migration of telomeric v centromeric alleles , biogeographic isolation with convergent evolution, Dolo's Law, (is it valid), methylation and STR's , why a pyridine and pyrimidine only, (and lately), thhe appearance of aragonite over calcite in organism tests, or why C12 over C13 in the living state, fossil chemistry aids understanding early cell structures (is it even valid?))

You guys seem to stifle any discussions by insisting that ID "must happen" and all Ive been doing is trying to draw out the evidence you guys seem to secrete (is it just to avoid any questioning??). The real difference is that science is proud of its ignorance and we have great debates about fairly minor points and total disagreements about majors. Most scientists have very little patience with folks who come up and say, You guys are all wet, ID is , of course the only way life could have been started up and ID is the author of all evolution.Then, when asked for evidence, the ID'ers say," I just told you,youidiot"!!!
Youre gonna get lots of "If this designer is intelligent, howcome life looks like a total cluster **** when you look at the overloaded genomes of , flat worms here they have pseudogenes that outnumber ours but have working coding genes of only 1/20 of ours. OR How bout the hundreds of different coleoptera fossils in the Carboniferous alone and thousands in each period thereafter, until today we have maybe a half million species of beetles alone

Not going to waste my time knocking down (again) the many straw men in that post.

I think I can safely say we have both adequately made our points already.

being your normal P. A. self, I assume nothing less than you (rather than challenging my FACTS) will just call them strawmen.

As far as your cloing and summary statement,--- NO, you have NOT made any points that are worth discusing, let alone agree that youve made them "adequately". You start out your entire discussions with "ID is a fact and then move on to ignore "WHY "??
Ive asserted the possible existence (by evidence)of one point of ID , (possibly ID) and thats Panspermia. Of which we one piece of evidence in than the fact that life appers to have begun at least 3 or 4 times in the 4.2 to 3.8 B year interval .Tht Evidence is one of chemical "fossils" in what apparently were ancient sediment beds that were , later, overtopped by wet ash or tephra
deposits. The ID evidence is NOT that they existed but the chemical fossils seem to be very similar in deposits that are at least 1/4 BILLION years apart. and half a world apart on the Rhodinian mapset. To me, panspermia may bean ID idea for a non natural start up of life, But it ends there. We wont know for sure until we visit other earth like planets or sample more deeply in MArs .

Thats what I man bout something like hard evidence. All evidence is circumstantial until it overlaps and supports and resupports other evidence from different lines of data.

HOWEVER, just staring up with a line or a quote taken from someone at DI or a philosopher whose reasoning seems quite a bit shaky and lacking in deeper knowledge about a subject, can be dismissed rather quickly.

BUT, by annointing it as a mere"straw man" (Which Im certain you understnd the actual meaning of), youve dismissed it as probably perjured. If its a fact it aint a strawman and its a fact. As I say to you often, LOOK IT UP .

WasI around when you did what youve claimed???

Tell me what "strw man" youve "knocked down"??

I hope it aint your Limulus v Cockroach evolution evidence. AS I said there, when animals evolve, they show all kinds of different mesuremenst both internally and externally. Weve had a 300 MILLION yar hitory of trilobites with basically the same overall structure and jut differences in fins and headlights, what paleontologists tell from the edaphic features in which they lived, they adapted by change and then pretty much stayed there.
Evolution int an order from above. Weve had ungulates look pretty much the same for 35 million years (and daughter species ) that have evolved from a common ancetror deer-like animal that became a moose or elk, while the common ancetor DID NOT disappear. (I used to follow Ehrlich's rule that common ancetry prpecludes contemporaneity). Thi was a rule till about the 1990s when it was discovered that hyraxes were the ancestor of wlephants AND THEY STILL LIVE TODAY.
SO I was wrong as were somany other scientists who studied Ehrlichs Rule and were told to "Shut up" when we questioned (but really didnt have the data yet)

SO if youre waiting for the data to confirm what are now mere beliefs, youd be no different than Darwin who said that common ancetry is kinda fucked up by a shitty fossil record and the incompleteness of the stratigarphic column. Qt least have the honesty to say so.

Just in case you didn’t know, there's one of those straw men now. And I’m being charitable.

That’s why I think we're done with this.

well, if youve got no arrows in yer quiver, no sense picking up the bow.

This is my statement that preceded yours that stated youve "knocked down" all my strawmen. How is this a strawman (since my otherlater post, written in frustration at how you seem to just accuse and run, had not yet been written). So, unless youre prescient Im sticking with my statement about how you guys seem to count the assertion that ID "has happened and is merely a response to algorithmic expansions".
You dint really seem to want to discuss facts and evidence. You want other passive acceptance of your hypotheses . I and several others have demanded evidence among your assertions but I guess that will NEVER occur.
See ya then.

They could never present "evidence," because they can't provide evidence for their primary designer. It's hokey pokey; all in the imagination of the religious'.

I miss guys like Medved who t least tried to present evidence and rgues their points as concluion from "evidence". Whereas BJ n LF provide u with "lead in lines" that assert that ID is undeniably proven and then they get all touchy about how Im bnging on them and how their point are similar to thoise of science.

BUT THEY NEVER PRESENT ANYTHING BUT an interminable repeating decimal about how ID is a fact based on an algorithm made by designer. Rev Paley and Phil Johnson crap.

Gaaaack!

This link explains Intelligent Design pretty well. No evidence; just belief in the bible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Trust me, Ive got a huge library of stuff written of and by the tools of the Discovery Institute, ICR, and several of the Fundamental Religion Colleges and Unis whose entire science departments are unaccredited . AS I said many times, One of my hobbies has been to collect and shelve many of the old time science books and geology texts and Biblical "Creation SCience" texts that were used as school texts throught the 1940s. I set up a bookshelf so the (then) grad students could gather information bout the way many of these science books wanted the student to think. They were for the most part, overzealously religious, wrong headed, incorrect in their facts, and, worst of all, fairly racist.

So could you clarify that statement? Is there a difference between observing all isotopes at the same energy level interact exactly the same and assuming they all act the same when you aren't looking? And then, based on that assumption, developing laws of physics that we accept as nearly factual all the time?

Could you clarify this also.

Time existed when the first particles of the universe vibrated at a certain frequency. Time is necessary to determine frequency, rpm, etc. . . Time was meaningless until patterns were established in the universe which, was done by storing space in atoms that were rotating or vibrating in a specific way in each specific isotope of matter and each higgs boson of the higgs field that interacted with matter. Once those atoms were constructed matter could be arranged into molecules stars and planets (patterns inside of patterns). All that information has been stored since the beginning of the universe in the matter of the universe, whether men or any other living thing existed to contemplate it. But without somebody telling somebody else what information he wanted stored as patterns in the atoms, the atoms would be meaningless and have no explanation to where the information came from.

Are you saying it wasn't information until man contemplated it?



I think the information existed "absolutely" when the first atom was made because it exists when nobody is observing it today. But, the interpretation of the patterns in the information and, the corresponding choices that are made are relative to each individual that is capable of interpreting the information. (I am assuming this because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle requires all intelligent beings existing in matter will never be able to interpret the patterns exactly the same even, every isotope is at the same energy level is exactly the same). Or could they, if they had enough information to compensate for the uncertainty principle?

typical of wikipedia, that article has several things that just arent so and Ive gotta take a side tht it appears the evolution science side has overstepped their massive amounts of vidence to include a couple of actuql lies. Im gonna write to wiki nd get em to changes several of the inserts about concept and severql people therein.

This is an evidence proving that evolution happened. Statistical analysis of the necessary new information being introduced exactly the correct way for specification to occur from random sources will not appear in the fossil record. It is analysis information management by an ecosystem.

It is worth keeping in mind that since early in 2013 (at least), christian types have been vandalizing Wikipedia articles. None of the articles on the historicity of Jeebus are reliable, nor are the articles about the early church. I suspect the holy rollers are just now getting around to vandalizing the articles about evolution.

You missed the major point. volution"happening" was already accepted since we had evidence of lobe finned fish and later we saw amphibians oin the fossil record. The falsifiability was in the "Where did it happen". Since ID currently till issues a pronouncement of "sudden appearance and Irreducible complexity", Hqd they taken a look, they would probably have little idea about where would a species suddenly appear.

To accept evolution and the scene of the transition based on stratigraphy , paleoecology , and sea floor spreading of the ACadian event,(which fits not any of ID's preachings to date of which Im aware). It would have been anathematized by the centers of "ID research"

If you agree with the falsifiability approach, then youve moved another step away from ID . The reason is that youd have gathered a record of the earths various stirrings and continents splitting, toxicant emanations, etc etc. The ID centers have never embraced the apparent fact that, without a 150 year investigation into the earths geologic column, wed never be able to present a tale of the rise of life (especially since it was nearly wiped out 5 times and in minor cataclysms in another 8 or nine local events that caused specific species to disappear (including humans ancestors).

The ID crowd has been preaching a form of Theistic evolution and "controlled ecosystems" that were tools used by this undefined Intelligence. In reality, using an Occams Razorly approach, the simplest explanation is random mutation and nat selection of life to its unplannable changing environment

Your probably right. Ive seen several inserts into mineralogical journal items where journals have gotten pissed about how some of the fringies have "re-cast" the changes in mineral assemblages into some kind of "
tent show EVidence" for religious POV's.

Sorta cheapens the good scientific work.