Bruce Chapman—"The Pseudo-Science Guy"

As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.

If Intelligent Design makes no claim who the designer is and a random ID'er believes in the christian God does that mean that this particular ID'er accepts that the unspecified designer has designed the christian God at some point in his (the designer, that is) life?
Or am I missing something?

Eddie Janssen said: If Intelligent Design makes no claim who the designer is and a random ID'er believes in the christian God does that mean that this particular ID'er accepts that the unspecified designer has designed the christian God at some point in his (the designer, that is) life? Or am I missing something?

Oh boy. "Equal time" = affirmative action for IDC. Whatever happen to the idea of meritocracy in America? I say "time in proportion to the evidence".

The Discovery Institute's creationist news page on the subject is about as bad as Dembski's Judge Jones farting episode. Can anyone believe that a serious sane group would put up the Nye graphics that they created?

Chapman should review the mission statement of the Discovery Institute's ID scam wing. The logo of God and Adam seems to negate what he claims about their intelligent designer.

http://web.archive.org/web/19980114111554/http://discovery.org/crsc/aboutcrsc.html

Intelligent Design makes no claims about who the designer is, nor is it a religious idea!

The theory of intelligent design generates both excitement and loathing because, in addition to providing a compelling explanation of the scientific facts, it holds out the promise of help in integrating two things of supreme importance--science and faith--that have long been seen as at odds.

IDC is a rationalization because it predicts EVERY outcome. If every single fossil were that of an organism alive today, that would support IDC and contradict evolution. The real fossil record supports evolution... and also IDC! They never lose!

That was a very well written blog post, thanks! That Gallup poll is disappointing, it doesn't have a godless response, all the responses imply there is a god.

How about naming a school district that mandated the teaching of Intelligent Design.

That would be the Dover Area School District in 2004.

I wonder if Chappy can spell "Kitzmiller."

ID is somewhat like fundamental particles - it has a dual nature, and its position can never be precisely measured.

When seeking funds, during Republican primaries, during closed conferences, when its advocates are working at Bible colleges, and at most other times, ID is about "faith", and understood by everyone to be about right wing post-modern political fundamentalist Christianity, as practiced extensively in the US, to a slightly lesser degree in the rest of the Anglosphere, and in a variety of other places, such as Uganda. Stripped of overt use of the words "Jesus", "God", "Noah's Ark", "Global Flood", and "less than ten thousand years" for purely legal considerations, of course.

However, whenever a science supporter points this out, ID immediately switches, and ID advocates become enraged at the suggestion that they peddle religious authoritarian science denial. It immediately becomes "just a coincidence" that 100% of politicians, school board members, and teachers who try to impose ID are right wing religious authoritarians. It immediately becomes just a strange coincidence, or the result of a dastardly plot, that ID advocates focus on high school curricula and hack books for the public - published by right wing, religion-heavy publishers - rather than serious scholarly work.

But as always, I'm ready to be convinced. All I ask is some answers to these basic questions.

1) Could any evidence convince you of the theory of evolution, and if so, what type of evidence is now lacking, that would convince you, if present?

2) The Supreme Court ruled against the direct teaching of Biblical Young Earth Creationism as science in public schools; however, if that ruling were overturned, which would you support more, teaching of ID, or direct teaching of Bible-based YEC?

3) Do you think it is important for opponents of the theory of evolution to fully understand the theory of evolution? If so, can you explain it, and if not, can you explain why not?

4) Who is the designer? How can we test your answer?

5) What did that designer do? How can we test your answer?

6) How did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

7) When did the designer do it? How can we test your answer?

8) What is an example of something that was not designed by the designer?

The Bogart quote is perfect, I doubt that Nye or Tyson even know who Chapman is.

If creationism/ID is so good, let it go through the normal process of debate/scientific testing/peer review within the mainstream scientific community. No Discovery Institute green-screen labs. No fake ID "peer-review" journals. Do real science.

True, creationism/intelligent design is opposed by the vast majority of scientists, especially those in geology/paleontology, biology, and physics; this all includes many Christian scientists and other scientists who are also theists. But, again, those rare scientists in biology, geology/paleontology that accept ID/creationism can step up to the plate and routinely do the scientific experiments, routinely publish in mainstream peer-review science journals, routinely show up at science meetings and seminars, etc, to help their side which might convince other scientists. This in itself could rather automatically get new science views into science classrooms.

But instead, ID/creationism advocates mainly try to use the legal and political process to short-circuit the scientific peer review process. How fair is this considering that other scientific ideas have to fight and earn their way to a scientific consensus?

Ron Okimoto said: The logo of God and Adam seems to negate what he claims about their intelligent designer.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: And Stevie's junk book is based on science, according to his cheesy little piece.

Additionally, from Judge Jones Memorandum Opinion Kitzmiller v Dover Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342:

“Moreover, in turning to Defendants’ lead expert, Professor Behe, his testimony at trial indicated that ID is only a scientific, as opposed to a religious, project for him; however, considerable evidence was introduced to refute this claim. Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God. (P-718 at 705). As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition’s validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe’s assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.”

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. To replace materialistic explanation with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation and repudiate(s) Darwinism. Seminaries increasingly recognize [and] repudiate naturalistic presuppositions. Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God. Apologetics seminars and public speaking.

Are You Intelligently Designed? http://cjonline.com/blog-post/contra-mundum/2012-10-23/are-you-intelligently-designed

FL, everyone with more than one neuron knows about the ID scam. It is just out-of-date creationism repackaged as ID, this pseudoscience has been around for years. It was wrong then and is still wrong in its shiny new wrapper.

Show us the designer, show what he did, when and how. You know you can't.

And where is the threat of hell with bbq sauce, you forgot that, hmmm, FL.

Two things that I'd like to point out about the question, "Are You Intelligently Designed?"

One is that this is a question about an individual, not about a collective (a population, a species, or a "kind"). If there is some problem about naturalistic/scientific/materialist investigations about the origins of individuals, then one is talking about reproductive biology (or maybe genetics or developmental biology), not about evolution.

The other is that even if there is some major difficulty in accounting for the origins of something-or-other by naturalistic/scientific/materialistic explanations, that is not enough to give an alternative account. There is no description of what happens, when and where, why or how, when an "Intelligent Design" event happens. All we have is "I can't imagine how evolution works in this case".

Are we supposed to believe, for example, that the reason that humans have a bodily structure so similar to the bodies of chimps and other apes is that some unspecified "Intelligent Designer(s)" wanted us to serve similar functions as those other primates? Or was it that the designer(s) were constrained by the materials that they were given to work with, and couldn't have done it any other way?

FL said: Mahone and other posters speak of the Intelligent Design hypothesis in this thread, but all of them seem to be speaking (so far) as if readers/lurkers were automatically familiar with the specific details of that hypothesis. However, that assumption may not be true for all readers/lurkers. Therefore permit me to offer the following article to help clarify things:

Are You Intelligently Designed? http://cjonline.com/blog-post/contra-mundum/2012-10-23/are-you-intelligently-designed

FL

So here's my answer, in my own words, based on the writings of ID advocates such as mathematician Dr. William Dembski and biochemist Dr. Michael Behe.

Paul Burnett said:

Ron Okimoto said: The logo of God and Adam seems to negate what he claims about their intelligent designer.

I usually quote the first sentence of the Wedge Document: "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built." and ask "Does this make it sound like intelligent design creationism is more about religion or science?"

THE proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its damning cultural legacies.

FL said: Mahone and other posters speak of the Intelligent Design hypothesis in this thread, but all of them seem to be speaking (so far) as if readers/lurkers were automatically familiar with the specific details of that hypothesis. However, that assumption may not be true for all readers/lurkers. Therefore permit me to offer the following article to help clarify things:

Are You Intelligently Designed? http://cjonline.com/blog-post/contra-mundum/2012-10-23/are-you-intelligently-designed

FL

“Many people -- including young people -- are seriously asking about the ID hypothesis, even today. They already know that the ID hypothesis, if true, would chop and drop the theory of evolution.”

“After all, YOU are the biggest confirmation of the ID hypothesis; YOU are the biggest disproof of the theory of evolution.”

“1. Specified Complexity -- the best way to describe SC, is like the sentences and paragraphs you're reading here. Each sentence and paragraph is way too specific and at the same time way too complex, to have originated from natural causes. (Your own DNA is like a complex language communication system or a very complicated computer algorithm, isn't it? Better start asking how all that complex specified programming popped up inside you!)”

“2. Irreducible Complexity -- it's a special case of specified complexity (Dembski), and the best way to describe IC is like those cheap mousetraps you buy at Wal-Mart. As Behe suggests, all parts of a mousetrap system MUST be present and work together all at the same time, in order for that system to fulfill its purpose. Mousetraps don't appear via natural causes. Each part must be in its proper place all at once, AND all the pieces must work together correctly all at once, or else the system doesn't catch mice, doesn't fulfill its purpose. So when you see a working mousetrap, you're seeing an object that displays Irreducible Complexity.”

”(By the way, multiple and compelling examples of Irreducible Complexity, can be found inside your own two eyes, right here and now. Go figure!)”

“So you get the picture. Specified Complexity and Irreducible Complexity are the markers that signal the presence of Intelligent Design in whatever you're looking at. So now here's the ID hypothesis: 1. Specified Complexity and/or Irreducible Complexity are well-defined and empirically detectable. 2. Undirected natural causes, like naturalistic evolution, cannot explain Specified Complexity and/or Irreducible Complexity. 3. Intelligent causation best explains Specified Complexity and/or Irreducible Complexity. That's an actual 3-point scientific hypothesis of Intelligent Design. And yes, it IS scientific, because that hypothesis makes a testable prediction which can be falsified in the real world. Here's the testable prediction: "The concept of intelligent design entails a strong prediction that is readily falsifiable. In particular, the concept of intelligent design predicts that complex information, such as that encoded in a functioning genome, NEVER arises from purely chemical or physical antecedents. Experience will show that only intelligent agency gives rise to functional information. All that is necessary to falsify the hypothesis of intelligent design is to show confirmed instances of purely physical or chemical antecedents producing such information." -- philosopher of science Dr. Stephen Meyer with Dr. Mark Hartwig, from the textbook "Of Pandas and People", 2nd ed, 1993.”

“Therefore YOU are the final disproof of Evolution, Atheism, and Agnosticism. YOU are intelligently designed, by You-Know-Who upstairs. So send Him an email and talk things over soon!”

Keelyn said: Floyd, calculate the specified complexity (or the CSI – both are Dembski invented jargon; very sciency) of this sentence, a blueberry pie, and a one kilogram piece of quartz.

Chapman's obliviousness to the existence and character of the YEC contingent in the "design" campaign is of a piece with all his compatriots at the DI, even though they know it is there. I recently brought this very topic up with their John West (lecturing at a Seattle church with Casey Luskin on the science-religion divide) inviting him to recount some of the instances where he had advised creationists to not put their material in the schools (he has never written of these episodes in any EN&V reports, to be sure) but got mainly a deer in teh headlights expression from him. Luskin and fossil matters were the main reason for my being there, which I cover at spokanefavs.com (I'm their atheist blogger!) on "Jimmy in the lions Den, or: a merry weekend of intelligent design lectures" at http://spokanefavs.com/culture/science/jimmy-in-the-lions-den-or-a-merry-weekend-of-intelligent-design-lectures.

I understand Nye will be attending CFI's October gathering in Tacoma, so hope to meet him there and give him a good job high five. Anybody who draws the ire of Bruce Chapman is jake with me, as the old saying goes (I have been dubbed "smarmy" by Saint Bill Dembski himself, incidently, to which I objected that in fact I am an arrogant bastard, and nothing less).

The real scientific community

FL said:

The real scientific community

How odd that you felt compelled to employ a qualifier, instead of just saying "the scientific community." So tell me -- how do you objectively and rationally distinquish "the real scientific community" from "the scientific community"? FL

Richard B. Hoppe said: Easy. Just look for the ones who are doing science, as distinguished from those who snipe from the sidelines.

FL said:

The real scientific community

How odd that you felt compelled to employ a qualifier, instead of just saying "the scientific community." So tell me -- how do you objectively and rationally distinquish "the real scientific community" from "the scientific community"? FL

FL said:

The real scientific community

How odd that you felt compelled to employ a qualifier, instead of just saying "the scientific community." So tell me -- how do you objectively and rationally distinquish "the real scientific community" from "the scientific community"? FL

Richard B. Hoppe said: Easy. Just look for the ones who are doing science, as distinguished from those who snipe from the sidelines.

FL said:

The real scientific community

How odd that you felt compelled to employ a qualifier, instead of just saying "the scientific community." So tell me -- how do you objectively and rationally distinquish "the real scientific community" from "the scientific community"? FL

By the way, multiple and compelling examples of Irreducible Complexity, can be found inside your own two eyes, right here and now. Go figure!

You go figure – prove it! (That means EVIDENCE, PLEASE!)

The following five minimum refractive-improving requirements can be identified, which must appear simultaneously in the vitreous fluid (inside your eye), in Nilsson and Pelger's "step 1034." First, the new protein local density must be appreciably greater than the protein concentrarions in the surrounding area in order to be subject to (natural) selection. Second, the protein concentration must also appear in the proper location, i.e., it must be in the center of aperture or, for example, a peripheral concentrated region would blur the image. Third and fourth respectively, the new protein concentrated region must display not only a proper shape but also a correct orientation within its proper location. This means that the protein concentrated region must accidentally and immediately possess adequate regularly curved surfaces on a general elliptical form whose shorter diameter is accidentally oriented at right angles to the plane of the aperture of the eye. Either an irregular asymmetrical region, or a tilted axis, would blur the image. Fifth, the protein concentration must immediately have an adequate degree of transparency because a foggy concentration would block vision. These five aspects must be present in adequate magnitude in one accidental step in order to elevate visual acuity. ....(The) initial protein concentrated region is nothing less than a tiny but adequately sized, located, shaped, oriented, clear functioning lens in ONE step, all of which has occurred when needed by a mutational copying error within a real time frame of 200 years. In one step, (the evolutionists) Nilsson and Pelger proceed from NO lens, to a lens. This is NOT evolution; this is singularity, this is mega-saltationism. -- adapted from John T. Baldwin article, "The Argument from Sufficient Initial System Organization as a Continuing Challenge to the Darwinian Rate and Method of Transitional Evolution", Christian Scholars Review, Vol. XXIV, No. 4. (May 1995), pp. 423-443.

Review of this and the last two columns clearly demonstrates: ** the extreme complexity and physiological interdependence of many parts of the eyeball ** the absolute necessity of many specific biomolecules reacting in exactly the right order to allow for photoreceptor cells and other neurons to transmit nervous impulses to the brain ** the presence of, not only an eyeball whose size is in the proper order to allow for focusing by the cornea and lens, but also a region in the retina (fovea) that is outfitted with the proper concentration of photoreceptor cells that are connected to the brain in a 1:1:1 fashion to allow for clear vision ** that vision is dependent on a complex array of turned around, upside down, split-up, and overlapping messages, from over two million optic nerve fibers that course their way to the visual cortex causing a neuroexcitatory spatial pattern that is interpreted as sight, -- from Dr. Howard Glickman, M.D., "Vision Part 3--What Does The Brain See?", http://www.arn.org/docs/glicksman/eyw_041201.htm

The hearing ear and the seeing eye, The Lord has made both of them. -- Prov. 20:12

FL never ever got around to elucidating what his “theory” said. In fact, the closest FL has ever gotten to in explaining his “theory” is to lie through his teeth about having explained it in the first place while refusing to so much as paraphrase whatever it was he allegedly said.

FL | February 19, 2011 4:02 PM | Edit

Not being a scientist (but enjoying it immensely when ever FL and ilk, bumble,stumble,and trip-up around here), I simply have this to say to FL and fellow science goofs; Why are you so incurious? Honestly, I studied History, I enjoy digging up the past in documents, papers, bigraphies etc. I relly do enjoy finding out exactly what Darwin actually did say, rather than have it mangled by the likes of you and your cohorts. Why are you so incurious? Fear of the truth is actually a very telling pschological indicator. Parroting what you have learned from lesser minds is actually a poor way to convince those that have no fear of your plain dishonesty.

I am curious. I cannot follow the original science literature in peer reviewed journals, but it has been my consistant experience that scientists re-packaging that original science in accessible formats and venues such as Pandas, quite successfully satiates my curiosity, until the next fossil is discovered and explained, or more 'junk' is conclusively proven to be so, or water is found on Mars, and actual scientists give the most reasoned, evidence based argument for this discovery. One horrifying fact that is conclusively and easily provable by listing a lttany of Dembesky lies, is that atheistic, Darwiniac scientists, are more honest than god fearing religious types. (Perhaps a sidebar for documented lies made by UD- too long I know).

FL, become curious. It's a wonderful state to be in and is infinately preferrable to the dark chasim of vulgar cetainty, that was my long forgotten religious blackhole of an upbringing. FL, casting off certainty, I became curious, and luckily can read accessible science that satiates that curiosity. I can only vaguely remember the 'dark ages' of my youth when all questions were answered by faith and my curiosity was held in deep suspicion.

FL said: Meanwhile, Stanton says:

FL never ever got around to elucidating what his “theory” said. In fact, the closest FL has ever gotten to in explaining his “theory” is to lie through his teeth about having explained it in the first place while refusing to so much as paraphrase whatever it was he allegedly said.

But in fact, Stanton's statement is purely false. I specifically gave that explanation, in its entirety, on:

FL | February 19, 2011 4:02 PM | Edit

...in the Wesley Elsberry thread (Main Page) which is entitled, "Louisiana: Repeal The Creationism Law." Stanton is free to look up the explanation for himself, or to save time, simply retract his claims. FL

this is mega-saltationism.

Since FL seems to have a problem with URLs, here's what I found.

Floyd, you do not have and will never have a means of detecting "information" that is relevant to disproving the evolution of life. I would ask you to copy and paste an equation for some kind of "information" that has these three properties simultaneously:

1. Found in biological structures

2. Not produced by biological processes

3. Known to be produced by invisible spooks

Which is essential for your inference. I'd ask, but I know you can't do that. Dembski can't, Behe can't.

You can say "information = Shakespearean sonnet" but that does not have property 1, there are no sonnets found in biological structures, nor anything resembling human grammar or language. Human languages, sonnets etc. are "not-1" information, irrelevant to biology; non-biological information.

Then you can say "information = highly improbable, if probability is computed as a random rearrangement of parts", but we know natural processes DO produce structures that have that kind of "information": salt crystals, aligned magnets etc. are highly improbable, if probability is computed as a random rearrangement of parts. Let's call that "not-2" information = naturally produced information.

Behe's Irreducible complexity is not-2, naturally produced, if "Part" (as in a system has no function if you remove any part) is defined as something big, like a protein molecule or complex of molecules. Behe's Irreducible complexity is not-1, non-biologically relevant, if "Part" is defined as something small, like an amino acid: there is no evidence any molecular structure would cease function upon removal of ANY amino acid.

No, you cannot and will not copy down an equation for any "information" that has properties 1, 2 and 3 simultaneously. Nor can Dembski, nor can Behe. You just equivocate back and forth between non-1 and not-2 information. If we say "Well that definition is irrelevant to biology", i.e. not-1, then you switch the bait with another, new definition that satisfies 1 but does NOT satisfy 2. When we complain that by THAT second definition, information can be naturally produced, so it's not-2, you equivocate and switch back to not-1.

And round and round we go, forever, you hope-- but it's over, we won, you lost. You cannot and will not copy down an equation for any "information" that has properties 1, 2 and 3 simultaneously, nor can Dembski, nor can Behe, because Intelligent Design is a fraud.

FL said:

The real scientific community

How odd that you felt compelled to employ a qualifier, instead of just saying "the scientific community." So tell me -- how do you objectively and rationally distinquish "the real scientific community" from "the scientific community"? FL

garystar1 said: Since FL seems to have a problem with URLs, here's what I found.

Specified complexity is well-defined and empirically detectable. -- ibid.

Undirected natural causes cannot explain specified complexity. -- ibid.

Intelligent causation best explains specified complexity. -- ibid.

You can say “information = Shakespearean sonnet” but that does not have property 1, there are no sonnets found in biological structures, nor anything resembling human grammar or language. Human languages, sonnets etc. are “not-1” information, irrelevant to biology; non-biological information.

Then you can say “information = highly improbable, if probability is computed as a random rearrangement of parts”, but we know natural processes DO produce structures that have that kind of “information”: salt crystals, aligned magnets etc. are highly improbable, if probability is computed as a random rearrangement of parts. Let’s call that “not-2” information = naturally produced information.

Behe’s Irreducible complexity is not-2, naturally produced, if “Part” (as in a system has no function if you remove any part) is defined as something big, like a protein molecule or complex of molecules. Behe’s Irreducible complexity is not-1, non-biologically relevant, if “Part” is defined as something small, like an amino acid: there is no evidence any molecular structure would cease function upon removal of ANY amino acid.

No, you cannot and will not copy down an equation for any “information” that has properties 1, 2 and 3 simultaneously. Nor can Dembski, nor can Behe. You just equivocate back and forth between non-1 and not-2 information. If we say “Well that definition is irrelevant to biology”, i.e. not-1, then you switch the bait with another, new definition that satisfies 1 but does NOT satisfy 2. When we complain that by THAT second definition, information can be naturally produced, so it’s not-2, you equivocate and switch back to not-1.

Steve P. said: It is true that there is nothing resembling human grammar or language in the genome. But a sonnet, well I don't think diogeneslamp0 has yet figured out a way to support that assertion...except maybe out of sight, out of mind.

You can say “information = Shakespearean sonnet” but that does not have property 1, there are no sonnets found in biological structures, nor anything resembling human grammar or language. Human languages, sonnets etc. are “not-1” information, irrelevant to biology; non-biological information.

Here it seems you wish to conflate natural processes with darwinian processes. Of course they are natural processes, but hardly darwinian. Curiously, have you ever seen salt crystals building castles made of salt? Didn't think so.

Then you can say “information = highly improbable, if probability is computed as a random rearrangement of parts”, but we know natural processes DO produce structures that have that kind of “information”: salt crystals, aligned magnets etc. are highly improbable, if probability is computed as a random rearrangement of parts. Let’s call that “not-2” information = naturally produced information.

This is just pendantic drivel. In the mousetrap example, it is clear that if any one part of that simple structure is removed, the structure fails. The less parts the lower the threshold. In the case of a super structure like a protein, the threshold is obviously higher. Redundancy is proportional to the robustness of a complex structure. All diogeneslamp0 has to do is experiment and figure out what is the minimum number and particular mix of amino acids removed from the protein that renders it unfunctional.

Behe’s Irreducible complexity is not-2, naturally produced, if “Part” (as in a system has no function if you remove any part) is defined as something big, like a protein molecule or complex of molecules. Behe’s Irreducible complexity is not-1, non-biologically relevant, if “Part” is defined as something small, like an amino acid: there is no evidence any molecular structure would cease function upon removal of ANY amino acid.

At least ID is making the attempt. You (pl) are like the hare prancing around, ridiculing the torquoise at its slow pace. Well, we know how that story ended. So keep avoiding to acknowlege the building evidence of information as a real, independent entity. Sure, quantifying it is a bitch. But again, its good that Dembski, Marks, and Ewert among others are working on the problem. In a word, Diogeneslamp0 is just that kid shooting spitballs out of a straw from the back of the room.

No, you cannot and will not copy down an equation for any “information” that has properties 1, 2 and 3 simultaneously. Nor can Dembski, nor can Behe. You just equivocate back and forth between non-1 and not-2 information. If we say “Well that definition is irrelevant to biology”, i.e. not-1, then you switch the bait with another, new definition that satisfies 1 but does NOT satisfy 2. When we complain that by THAT second definition, information can be naturally produced, so it’s not-2, you equivocate and switch back to not-1.

Richard B. Hoppe said: Easy. Just look for the ones who are doing science, as distinguished from those who snipe from the sidelines.

FL said:

The real scientific community

How odd that you felt compelled to employ a qualifier, instead of just saying "the scientific community." So tell me -- how do you objectively and rationally distinquish "the real scientific community" from "the scientific community"? FL

phhht, figured you be first out of the gate.

now, where's the stanton half of your twin rhetorical spiel.

Oh, look. It's the other half of the FL tag-team. Still can't answer questions then, SkevieP. No evidence for ID, the Designer or your gods, hmmm Skevie?

FL, So your evidence amounts to a creationist article from someone who believes that der Flud was a real event, not even a link to the actual paper.

Skevie said "At least ID is making the attempt".

You mean by standing in front of a green screen and photostocking a real lab. in? When has any pseudoscientist in the ID movement ever done any research. Where are the peer-reviewed papers based on that research.

Who is the Designer?, is there more than one? Enquiring minds need to know, so go to it, Skevie, do the work, make a name for yourself, not what we call you.

Steve P. said: phhht, figured you be first out of the gate.

Steve P. said: Oh, you mean Dawkins, PZ, and Coyne? Why, naturally they are doing science whereas Dembski, Marks, Ewert, Behe, Myers and Durston are not. Clear as a bell.

Richard B. Hoppe said: Easy. Just look for the ones who are doing science, as distinguished from those who snipe from the sidelines.

FL said:

The real scientific community

How odd that you felt compelled to employ a qualifier, instead of just saying "the scientific community." So tell me -- how do you objectively and rationally distinquish "the real scientific community" from "the scientific community"? FL

Stevie P, why don't you do something that no one in the ID community has ever done before.

Tell us the value of "function" in "specified information".

Until you do, then any discussion of information is a complete waste of time.

Otherwise, why don't you tell us what discoveries were made using ID principles and how those discoveries affected further science work. Or you could describe some products or services that have been developed using ID principles.

Oh, we could go right to the source and you could tell us what these ID principles are... because no one has ever stated them before... other than

Something, somewhen, did something, but we don't know who, what, where, when, why or how.

Yes, let's see something positive and substantive from ID.

What with all of those scientists and other people who have been working on ID for all of these years ...

Liar for Jesus lied: Meanwhile, Stanton says:

FL never ever got around to elucidating what his “theory” said. In fact, the closest FL has ever gotten to in explaining his “theory” is to lie through his teeth about having explained it in the first place while refusing to so much as paraphrase whatever it was he allegedly said.

But in fact, Stanton's statement is purely false. I specifically gave that explanation, in its entirety, on:

FL | February 19, 2011 4:02 PM | Edit

...in the Wesley Elsberry thread (Main Page) which is entitled, "Louisiana: Repeal The Creationism Law." Stanton is free to look up the explanation for himself, or to save time, simply retract his claims. FL

FL said: And so I wrote:

By the way, multiple and compelling examples of Irreducible Complexity, can be found inside your own two eyes, right here and now. Go figure!

And so Keelyn replied,

You go figure – prove it! (That means EVIDENCE, PLEASE!)

Fair enough. So, permit me to provide good evidence for good Keelyn. Here's the first one:

The following five minimum refractive-improving requirements can be identified, which must appear simultaneously in the vitreous fluid (inside your eye), in Nilsson and Pelger's "step 1034." First, the new protein local density must be appreciably greater than the protein concentrarions in the surrounding area in order to be subject to (natural) selection. Second, the protein concentration must also appear in the proper location, i.e., it must be in the center of aperture or, for example, a peripheral concentrated region would blur the image. Third and fourth respectively, the new protein concentrated region must display not only a proper shape but also a correct orientation within its proper location. This means that the protein concentrated region must accidentally and immediately possess adequate regularly curved surfaces on a general elliptical form whose shorter diameter is accidentally oriented at right angles to the plane of the aperture of the eye. Either an irregular asymmetrical region, or a tilted axis, would blur the image. Fifth, the protein concentration must immediately have an adequate degree of transparency because a foggy concentration would block vision. These five aspects must be present in adequate magnitude in one accidental step in order to elevate visual acuity. ....(The) initial protein concentrated region is nothing less than a tiny but adequately sized, located, shaped, oriented, clear functioning lens in ONE step, all of which has occurred when needed by a mutational copying error within a real time frame of 200 years. In one step, (the evolutionists) Nilsson and Pelger proceed from NO lens, to a lens. This is NOT evolution; this is singularity, this is mega-saltationism. -- adapted from John T. Baldwin article, "The Argument from Sufficient Initial System Organization as a Continuing Challenge to the Darwinian Rate and Method of Transitional Evolution", Christian Scholars Review, Vol. XXIV, No. 4. (May 1995), pp. 423-443.

Okay, that's the first evidence. You see all that good hearty Irreducible Complexity there? You'd be stone blind right this minute without it, folks. Think about it. **** Meanwhile, since I did say "multiple examples", I am obligated to supply at least one more evidence. So here it is, for you:

Review of this and the last two columns clearly demonstrates: ** the extreme complexity and physiological interdependence of many parts of the eyeball ** the absolute necessity of many specific biomolecules reacting in exactly the right order to allow for photoreceptor cells and other neurons to transmit nervous impulses to the brain ** the presence of, not only an eyeball whose size is in the proper order to allow for focusing by the cornea and lens, but also a region in the retina (fovea) that is outfitted with the proper concentration of photoreceptor cells that are connected to the brain in a 1:1:1 fashion to allow for clear vision ** that vision is dependent on a complex array of turned around, upside down, split-up, and overlapping messages, from over two million optic nerve fibers that course their way to the visual cortex causing a neuroexcitatory spatial pattern that is interpreted as sight, -- from Dr. Howard Glickman, M.D., "Vision Part 3--What Does The Brain See?", http://www.arn.org/docs/glicksman/eyw_041201.htm

What Dr. Glickman is describing there, of course, is pure Irreducible Complexity. And that's on TOP of the Irreducible Complexity of the human eye lens that JT Baldwin pointed out. You have plenty of evidence now. **** Therefore every time you look in your toothpaste-stained bathroom mirror, every time you see your custom-built, fingerprint-unique eyes in that mirror, YOU DISPROVE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. That's right. You scientifically falsify all that worthless Atheism and Agnosticism and Evolution mess, every time you visually examine these Pandasthumb discussion pages and post your assorted comments. So tell me -- how do you feel about that situation? Hm?

The hearing ear and the seeing eye, The Lord has made both of them. -- Prov. 20:12

FL

Therefore every time you look in your toothpaste-stained bathroom mirror, every time you see your custom-built, fingerprint-unique eyes in that mirror, YOU DISPROVE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. That’s right.

You scientifically falsify all that worthless Atheism and Agnosticism and Evolution mess, every time you visually examine these Pandasthumb discussion pages and post your assorted comments.

So tell me – how do you feel about that situation? Hm?

garystar1 said: Since FL seems to have a problem with URLs, here's what I found.

Steve P. whined: Oh, you mean Dawkins, PZ, and Coyne? Why, naturally they are doing science whereas Dembski, Marks, Ewert, Behe, Myers and Durston are not. Clear as a bell.

Richard B. Hoppe said: Easy. Just look for the ones who are doing science, as distinguished from those who snipe from the sidelines.

FL said:

The real scientific community

How odd that you felt compelled to employ a qualifier, instead of just saying "the scientific community." So tell me -- how do you objectively and rationally distinquish "the real scientific community" from "the scientific community"? FL

Diogenes said: No, you cannot and will not copy down an equation for any “information” that has properties 1, 2 and 3 simultaneously. Nor can Dembski, nor can Behe. You just equivocate back and forth between non-1 and not-2 information. If we say “Well that definition is irrelevant to biology”, i.e. not-1, then you switch the bait with another, new definition that satisfies 1 but does NOT satisfy 2. When we complain that by THAT second definition, information can be naturally produced, so it’s not-2, you equivocate and switch back to not-1. And round and round we go, forever, you hope– but it’s over, we won, you lost.

Steve P. said: Of course they are natural processes, but hardly darwinian. Curiously, have you ever seen salt crystals building castles made of salt?

Steve P. said: It is true that there is nothing resembling human grammar or language in the genome. But a sonnet, well I don't think diogeneslamp0 has yet figured out a way to support that assertion...

Steve P. said:

Then you can say “information = highly improbable, if probability is computed as a random rearrangement of parts”, but we know natural processes DO produce structures that have that kind of “information”: salt crystals, aligned magnets etc. are highly improbable, if probability is computed as a random rearrangement of parts. Let’s call that “not-2” information = naturally produced information.

This is just pendantic drivel. In the mousetrap example, it is clear that if any one part of that simple structure is removed, the structure fails.

All diogeneslamp0 has to do is experiment and figure out what is the minimum number and particular mix of amino acids removed from the protein that renders it unfunctional.

William Dembski wrote: But there is now mounting evidence of biological systems for which any slight modification does not merely destroy the system’s existing function but also destroys the possibility of any function of the system whatsoever (see Axe 2000). [William Dembski, “The Logical Underpinnings of Intelligent Design”, October 2002, p.19-20]

Steve P: So keep avoiding to acknowlege the building evidence of information as a real, independent entity.

Diogenes wrote: And round and round we go, forever, you hope– but it’s over, we won, you lost. You cannot and will not copy down an equation for any “information” that has properties 1, 2 and 3 simultaneously, nor can Dembski, nor can Behe, because Intelligent Design is a fraud.

Steve P: So keep avoiding to acknowlege the building evidence of information as a real, independent entity. Sure, quantifying it is a bitch. But again, its good that Dembski, Marks, and Ewert among others are working on the problem.

All FL and Steve P can do to defend Intelligent Design are to make up lies that they've allegedly already done so, and insult those who do not blindly accept their inane, evidence-free assertions.

If FL, Steve P and any other erstwhile defender of Intelligent Design really wanted to shut their critics up forever and ever and ever, they could explain exactly how one does science with Intelligent Design. But, this does not appear to be a viable option for any Intelligent Design proponent, given as how Intelligent Design was never intended to be an explanation, let alone a science, in the first place.

I have not had the time to read the entire paper (and you have not read any of it at all),

John T. Baldwin is a theologian with exactly zero documented expertise in evolutionary biology or any other field of science.

“Many people – including young people – are seriously asking about the ID hypothesis, even today. They already know that the ID hypothesis, if true, would chop and drop the theory of evolution.”

FL said:

I have not had the time to read the entire paper (and you have not read any of it at all),

Sorry, but not only do I have the entire paper (and read the whole thing), but I have the exact issue of CSR (1995) that the paper is located in. So much for playing the psychic, it seems. ****

John T. Baldwin is a theologian with exactly zero documented expertise in evolutionary biology or any other field of science.

Quite true. So every year since his article appeared in CSR (1995), I have scoured, and continue to scour, the evo-university-textbooks, the evo-popular-books, the science-journals and popular-science-magazines, AND the Internet (including the Pandasthumb and CARM websites) for to see if ANY evolutionist, anywhere, anytime, has published a refutation of the specific section about the human eye lens, which I earlier quoted from Dr. Baldwin's article. Guess what? Zero. None. Nada. Zippo. Not one refutation. Not one anything. So I am totally comfortable presenting this information about the human eye lens (and the highlighted factors that make it Irreducibly Complex) from Dr. Baldwin's CSR article.

"Many people – including young people – are seriously asking about the ID hypothesis, even today." "They already know that the ID hypothesis, if true, would chop and drop the theory of evolution."

FL said:

"Many people – including young people – are seriously asking about the ID hypothesis, even today." "They already know that the ID hypothesis, if true, would chop and drop the theory of evolution."

Both sentences are true, Harold. I'm pretty sure you have no objection to the first sentence, so let's look at the second. I'm sure you ~~might~~ would agree (maybe si maybe no) if I said, "the theory of prebiotic chemical evolution." You can't have no-teleology-no-conscious-forethought AND teleology-intelligent design at the same time. It's one or the other, (ID or Chem-Evo), on things like origin-of-life-from-nonlife. If you agree thus far (or partially agree) with what I've said, then would you be willing to consider that the same principle (that ID chops Evo if ID is true or Evo chops ID if Evo is true) might be true for the human eye or the human eye lens? FL

Steve P. said: phhht, figured you be first out of the gate.

ogremk5 said:

FL said:

"Many people – including young people – are seriously asking about the ID hypothesis, even today." "They already know that the ID hypothesis, if true, would chop and drop the theory of evolution."

Both sentences are true, Harold. I'm pretty sure you have no objection to the first sentence, so let's look at the second. I'm sure you ~~might~~ would agree (maybe si maybe no) if I said, "the theory of prebiotic chemical evolution." You can't have no-teleology-no-conscious-forethought AND teleology-intelligent design at the same time. It's one or the other, (ID or Chem-Evo), on things like origin-of-life-from-nonlife. If you agree thus far (or partially agree) with what I've said, then would you be willing to consider that the same principle (that ID chops Evo if ID is true or Evo chops ID if Evo is true) might be true for the human eye or the human eye lens? FL

No, because like Meyer, you are making a fundamental mistake. That is, that every currently living thing appeared, fully formed, wearing the latest style hat. That's a strawman. Only creationists think this. Of course, you don't care what science actually says. You don't listen to us and use your brain... except to try and trick us. Tell us FL, let's say that you are totally right. Do bacteria stop evolving antibiotic resistance? Do insects stop evolving pesticide resistance? Are all organisms born from then on suddenly clones? How does that work with sexual reproduction? Does sex stop working? Nope. Everything continues on, exactly as it has been. The only difference, is that we will have given up the only knowledge that allows us to figure out what's going on. So, please, explain how ID/creationism explains antibiotic resistance better than evolution. But you won't because we both know you can't.

Mousetraps and eyes, again. Yawn. Since you know better, just explain how it was done.

Hey, what ever happened to those secret labs where ID research was being conducted? They had to be hidden so evolution supporters couldn't find them and cause trouble.

Matt G said: Hey, what ever happened to those secret labs where ID research was being conducted? They had to be hidden so evolution supporters couldn't find them and cause trouble.

FL said:

I have not had the time to read the entire paper (and you have not read any of it at all),

Sorry, but not only do I have the entire paper (and read the whole thing), but I have the exact issue of CSR (1995) that the paper is located in. So much for playing the psychic, it seems.

John T. Baldwin is a theologian with exactly zero documented expertise in evolutionary biology or any other field of science.

Quite true. So every year since his article appeared in CSR (1995), I have scoured, and continue to scour, the evo-university-textbooks, the evo-popular-books, the science-journals and popular-science-magazines, AND the Internet (including the Pandasthumb and CARM websites) for to see if ANY evolutionist, anywhere, anytime, has published a refutation of the specific section about the human eye lens, which I earlier quoted from Dr. Baldwin's article. Guess what? Zero. None. Nada. Zippo. Not one refutation. Not one anything.

So I am totally comfortable presenting this information about the human eye lens (and the highlighted factors that make it Irreducibly Complex) from Dr. Baldwin's CSR article.

CSR is peer-reviewed, by the way. They aren't the type of folks to let obvious mistakes slip by them. I see no reason to presume or assume that Baldwin's information is anything but correct, until disconfirmed by some other article.

And don't forget all that unrefuted information from the medical doctor Dr. Howard Glickman.

THAT is Irreducible Complexity as well, and you would be blind as belfrey bat without it.

FL said: CSR is peer-reviewed, by the way. They aren't the type of folks to let obvious mistakes slip by them. I see no reason to presume or assume that Baldwin's information is anything but correct, until disconfirmed by some other article.

Floyd, I have to apologize. I will retract my remarks on CSR (I thought you referring to Creation Science Research. Nevertheless, he (or you) provide no references. And I still doubt any professional researchers would be bothered to refute anything in Christian Scholars Review.

But, I apologize and retract the laughter anyway. I am sure it is a respectable journal - for what it is for.

And Floyd, you still have not calculated the Specified Complexity or the Complex Specified Information in the sentence I gave you, or in blueberry pie, or in a kilogram piece of quartz, or in an individual, or in a population. Why don't you do that? You say that ID is dependent on SC (and CSI)- you wrote a blog post about it. Is there some reason why we can't get a calculation from you? Or from Behe? Or from Dembski? Or from someone? What's the problem?

Keelyn said: And Floyd, you still have not calculated the Specified Complexity or the Complex Specified Information in the sentence I gave you, or in blueberry pie, or in a kilogram piece of quartz, or in an individual, or in a population. Why don't you do that? You say that ID is dependent on SC (and CSI)- you wrote a blog post about it. Is there some reason why we can't get a calculation from you? Or from Behe? Or from Dembski? Or from someone? What's the problem?

phhht said:

Keelyn said: And Floyd, you still have not calculated the Specified Complexity or the Complex Specified Information in the sentence I gave you, or in blueberry pie, or in a kilogram piece of quartz, or in an individual, or in a population. Why don't you do that? You say that ID is dependent on SC (and CSI)- you wrote a blog post about it. Is there some reason why we can't get a calculation from you? Or from Behe? Or from Dembski? Or from someone? What's the problem?

Remember, FL doesn't actually know any math. No statistics. No algebra. Inconsistent, self-contradictory arithmetic. If he can't borrow a gloss from somewhere else, he can't tell one end of an equation from the other. He's just not very competent, mathematically.

adrianwht82 said: Skevie said "At least ID is making the attempt". You mean by standing in front of a green screen and photostocking a real lab. in? When has any pseudoscientist in the ID movement ever done any research. Where are the peer-reviewed papers based on that research. Who is the Designer?, is there more than one? Enquiring minds need to know, so go to it, Skevie, do the work, make a name for yourself, not what we call you.

Steve P. said: What, Dembski/Marks/Ewert/Durston/Myer are not doing research?? Oh, right their works doesn't count because its all LIES, LIES, and more LIES!!!!!!!!! Darwinian evolution is TRUTH, baby!

adrianwht82 said: Skevie said "At least ID is making the attempt". You mean by standing in front of a green screen and photostocking a real lab. in? When has any pseudoscientist in the ID movement ever done any research. Where are the peer-reviewed papers based on that research. Who is the Designer?, is there more than one? Enquiring minds need to know, so go to it, Skevie, do the work, make a name for yourself, not what we call you.

Steve P. said: What, Dembski/Marks/Ewert/Durston/Myer are not doing research??

Oh, right their works doesn't count because its all LIES, LIES, and more LIES!!!!!!!!!

Darwinian evolution is TRUTH, baby!

phhht said:

Steve P. said: phhht, figured you be first out of the gate.

Your gods are nonexistent, SkevieP. They do not exist. They are fictional characters like Superman and Harry Potter. They cannot do anything here in reality. They cannot tie a knot. They cannot wash a plate. They cannot do anything. They are illusions, SkevieP. Deny all you like, make snide comments, huff and puff to your heart's content, and at the end, there will still be no gods.

Steve P. said: Imagination can be a good AND bad thing, phhht. Like imagining mindless biological processes putting you in the driver's seat. So what is it that drives your denial of the obvious? Does it free your mind or something? It seems only armchair types would spend copious amount of time arguing around the obvious. The smart yet tedious play is figuring out how to quantify it; the lazy play is denying it exists from the get-go. IOW, 21st century biology is about pinning down information and its interaction with matter, not punting it to an imaginary, emergent endzone.

phhht said:

Steve P. said: phhht, figured you be first out of the gate.

Your gods are nonexistent, SkevieP. They do not exist. They are fictional characters like Superman and Harry Potter. They cannot do anything here in reality. They cannot tie a knot. They cannot wash a plate. They cannot do anything. They are illusions, SkevieP. Deny all you like, make snide comments, huff and puff to your heart's content, and at the end, there will still be no gods.

FL said:

I have not had the time to read the entire paper (and you have not read any of it at all),

Sorry, but not only do I have the entire paper (and read the whole thing), but I have the exact issue of CSR (1995) that the paper is located in. So much for playing the psychic, it seems. ****

John T. Baldwin is a theologian with exactly zero documented expertise in evolutionary biology or any other field of science.

Quite true. So every year since his article appeared in CSR (1995), I have scoured, and continue to scour, the evo-university-textbooks, the evo-popular-books, the science-journals and popular-science-magazines, AND the Internet (including the Pandasthumb and CARM websites) for to see if ANY evolutionist, anywhere, anytime, has published a refutation of the specific section about the human eye lens, which I earlier quoted from Dr. Baldwin's article. Guess what? Zero. None. Nada. Zippo. Not one refutation. Not one anything. So I am totally comfortable presenting this information about the human eye lens (and the highlighted factors that make it Irreducibly Complex) from Dr. Baldwin's CSR article. CSR is peer-reviewed, by the way. They aren't the type of folks to let obvious mistakes slip by them. I see no reason to presume or assume that Baldwin's information is anything but correct, until disconfirmed by some other article. And don't forget all that unrefuted information from the medical doctor Dr. Howard Glickman. THAT is Irreducible Complexity as well, and you would be blind as belfrey bat without it. FL

Steve P. said: What, Dembski/Marks/Ewert/Durston/Myer are not doing research??. [<--Fixed that for you. It isn't a question] Oh, right their works doesn't count because its all LIES, LIES, and more LIES!!!!!!!!! Darwinian evolution is TRUTH, baby!

adrianwht82 said: Skevie said "At least ID is making the attempt". You mean by standing in front of a green screen and photostocking a real lab. in? When has any pseudoscientist in the ID movement ever done any research. Where are the peer-reviewed papers based on that research. Who is the Designer?, is there more than one? Enquiring minds need to know, so go to it, Skevie, do the work, make a name for yourself, not what we call you.

Steve P. said: So what is it that drives your denial of the obvious?

Have you read Nilsson and Pelger’s paper? NO!

Ever since Nilsson and Pelger’s paper was published, Darwinian evolutionists citing the paper have almost invariably mis-reported its findings. Two great myths have been recycled in the literature again and again: the fiction that Nilsson and Pelger’s model was a computer simulation, and the fiction that the variations in the model were random, like the variations in Darwinian evolution. We now know – thanks to the indefatigable research of Dr. David Berlinski – is that Nilsson and Pelger’s model didn’t even use a computer. And now we also know that the variations introduced into the model were deliberately designed, rather than random. ---Uncommon Descent blog, "Could the eye have evolved by natural selection in a geological blink?", March 18, 2013 http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/could-the-eye-have-evolved-by-natural-selection-in-a-geological-blink/

Steviep said.....blah, blah, blah....

Where are the peer-reviewed papers, Skevie? Where is the calculation of SCI? Where is the design detector? Who is the designer? (Careful how you answer that, you don't want to blow the IDiots' bluff out of the water).

There is NO ID research. None, Nada, Zilch.

And yes, you were right, they are all liars.

FL, Did you really link to that website? It's a centre for IDiots to pat each other on the back and ban anyone who doesn't follow them. Even Dembski left that cess-pit.

What you quoted is not a critique of the paper but of others interpretations of it. And Berlinski? Credibility, much.

FL said:

Have you read Nilsson and Pelger’s paper? NO!

Are you kidding me? I thought you were going to dial down all that "Madam Psychic" stuff.

Once again you are mistaken. I have read the entire Nilsson-Pelger paper (it's been online for years, didn't you know?). Therefore, as punishment for your latest attempt at mind-reading, I shall now have to place MORE criticism of Nilsson's article upon the Panda table, for all to see!

Ever since Nilsson and Pelger’s paper was published, Darwinian evolutionists citing the paper have almost invariably mis-reported its findings. Two great myths have been recycled in the literature again and again: the fiction that Nilsson and Pelger’s model was a computer simulation, and the fiction that the variations in the model were random, like the variations in Darwinian evolution. We now know – thanks to the indefatigable research of Dr. David Berlinski – is that Nilsson and Pelger’s model didn’t even use a computer. And now we also know that the variations introduced into the model were deliberately designed, rather than random. ---Uncommon Descent blog, "Could the eye have evolved by natural selection in a geological blink?", March 18, 2013 http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/could-the-eye-have-evolved-by-natural-selection-in-a-geological-blink/

FL

And where are those calculations, Floyd?

Keelyn said:

Steve P. said: So what is it that drives your denial of the obvious?

That is what everyone has been trying to figure out about you. So, what is it that drives your denial of the obvious? Besides fear I mean. Is there anything else?

—Uncommon Descent blog, “Could the eye have evolved by natural selection in a geological blink?”, March 18, 2013

I’m sure you ~~might~~ would agree (maybe si maybe no) if I said, “the theory of prebiotic chemical evolution.”

You can’t have no-teleology-no-conscious-forethought AND teleology-intelligent design at the same time. It’s one or the other, (ID or Chem-Evo),

on things like origin-of-life-from-nonlife.

phhht said:

Steve P. said: Imagination can be a good AND bad thing, phhht. Like imagining mindless biological processes putting you in the driver's seat. So what is it that drives your denial of the obvious? Does it free your mind or something? It seems only armchair types would spend copious amount of time arguing around the obvious. The smart yet tedious play is figuring out how to quantify it; the lazy play is denying it exists from the get-go. IOW, 21st century biology is about pinning down information and its interaction with matter, not punting it to an imaginary, emergent endzone.

phhht said:

Steve P. said: phhht, figured you be first out of the gate.

Your gods are nonexistent, SkevieP. They do not exist. They are fictional characters like Superman and Harry Potter. They cannot do anything here in reality. They cannot tie a knot. They cannot wash a plate. They cannot do anything. They are illusions, SkevieP. Deny all you like, make snide comments, huff and puff to your heart's content, and at the end, there will still be no gods.

I'm pleased to see that you do not contest the nonexistence of gods, SkevieP. I'm always more comfortable talking to a fellow atheist. People who believe in such things as gods and rabbit's feet and so on seem to me to suffer from indefensible delusional disorders. And talk about preposterous! I mean, a reanimated corpse god?! Pull the other one, right? Amirite?

Steve P. said: What, Dembski/Marks/Ewert/Durston/Myer are not doing research?? Partially correct. Dembski does not do research. Meyer (surely you aren’t referring to PZ here) doesn’t do reserch. Marks, I know does, but it’s not ID reserch. I don’t know the other two and I’m too tired to look them up.

Oh, right their works doesn’t count because its all LIES, LIES, and more LIES!!!!!!!!!

Darwinian evolution is TRUTH, baby!

harold said: I don't think cells were created by magic, but if they were, it happened billions of years ago and they've been evolving ever since.

esus H. Christ on a shingle. Floyd can't even comment on a paper that he claims to have read. All he can do is another cheap cut and paste by some know nothing science wannabes about some other know nothing science wannabes. And of course he ignores all of the relevant SCIENTIFIC literature on the subject and expects everyone to just ignore the fact that he hasn't got a clue what he is talking about.

In any event, all his bluff and bluster is completely off topic for this thread, so once again it is time to dump his smarmy ass to the bathroom wall. Or you could learn you lesson and have it done automatically whenever he tries to join an adult conversation. Same goes for the ignorant Stevie pee pee.

Steve P. said: clever one, phhhht....and shrewd at that. ...but why contest the obvious....what? you need God to speak into a megaphone; jump up and down yelling for you to look His way, is that it? ....that would be a puny God's tactic. nawh, God is perfectly fine waiting on you to fish out your last round tuit. Time is not an issue. But having to spoon feed reality to creation is a bit tedious, don't you think? pushing molecules around is not what God had in Mind.

Steve P. said: pushing molecules around is not what God had in Mind.

Mike Elzinga said:

Keelyn said:

Steve P. said: So what is it that drives your denial of the obvious?

That is what everyone has been trying to figure out about you. So, what is it that drives your denial of the obvious? Besides fear I mean. Is there anything else?

Steve P(roulx) is a peddler of Taiwanese textiles with a history of being an Internet bar brawler always prowling for a fight. He does this everywhere he shows up. Nothing else matters to him.

I have not read any later papers by Dan-Erik Nilsson, and I have not read Nilsson and Pelger in a long time. But roughly what they did was this:

They devised a possible scenario for the evolution of a camera-type eye, based on the types of eyes that are found in different phyla, from a simple eyespot, through a concavity, an eye with a cornea, and an eye with a cornea and a lens, to name a few. In each case, they changed some parameter by 1 % and continued until changing that parameter resulted in no further improvement. Thus, for example, they made the concavity deeper and deeper, until there was no improvement in performance. Then they added a cornea. The increment of 1 % was chosen for convenience and represented many generations. No random variable was involved. The calculation was very sophisticated and involved such parameters as signal-to-noise ratio, as well as more-obvious parameters like angular field of view.

Their calculation was not a computer simulation, but Richard Dawkins, in River out of Eden, seems to have thought it was. Big deal.

Keelyn said:

Mike Elzinga said:

Keelyn said:

Steve P. said: So what is it that drives your denial of the obvious?

That is what everyone has been trying to figure out about you. So, what is it that drives your denial of the obvious? Besides fear I mean. Is there anything else?

Steve P(roulx) is a peddler of Taiwanese textiles with a history of being an Internet bar brawler always prowling for a fight. He does this everywhere he shows up. Nothing else matters to him.

Well, he doesn't appear particularly adept (inept, perhaps) at his brawling, Mike. He gets his backside kicked all over his IDC deity's "creation" and has to disappear for a month or two (or more) to let his wounds heal.

Anyway, you changed the subject to abiogenesis again.

If you agree thus far (or partially agree) with what I’ve said, then would you be willing to consider that the same principle (that ID chops Evo if ID is true or Evo chops ID if Evo is true) might be true for the human eye or the human eye lens?

By the way, Dave Luckett has a wonderfully eloquent post about you on the BW. Why don’t read it. :)

Let's talk about FL.

What does ID say about the development of the eye? What evidence is used to support this notion? How will this notion further our knowledge about genetics, development, and physiology?

I know you'll get right to ignoring those three questions as you have ignored all of my questions on the bathroom wall.

FL said:

Anyway, you changed the subject to abiogenesis again.

Only if you totally missed or totally ignored the clear question that appeared at the end of my post.

If you agree thus far (or partially agree) with what I’ve said, then would you be willing to consider that the same principle (that ID chops Evo if ID is true or Evo chops ID if Evo is true) might be true for the human eye or the human eye lens?

****

By the way, Dave Luckett has a wonderfully eloquent post about you on the BW. Why don’t read it. :)

Okay, that's done. Since you called attention to it, do you care to defend it? Water-carriers are always in demand on the BW. FL

ogremk5 said: Let's talk about FL. ... I know you'll get right to ignoring those three questions as you have ignored all of my questions on the bathroom wall.

Just Bob said:

ogremk5 said: Let's talk about FL. ... I know you'll get right to ignoring those three questions as you have ignored all of my questions on the bathroom wall.

Actually, you're far down the list. He has lots of other ignoring to do first.

I first encountered FL back in the Kansas Citizens for Science days and he hasn't changed a bit since then. Hasn't learned anything, hasn't changed his tune. Same old FL.

Doc Bill said: I first encountered FL back in the Kansas Citizens for Science days and he hasn't changed a bit since then. Hasn't learned anything, hasn't changed his tune. Same old FL.

If you want to know in a nutshell what is wrong with creationist “research,” take a look at Andrew Fabich announcing his “research” talk over at AiG.

He is an assistant professor at Liberty “University” and has “gone ahead and repeated the research as all good scientists should.” He asks, “So why should he stretch myself?”

How much research can a young assistant professor at Liberty “University” repeat? How did he manage to pack over a century of research by thousands of researchers into a few months?

Matt G said: Hey, what ever happened to those secret labs where ID research was being conducted? They had to be hidden so evolution supporters couldn't find them and cause trouble.

nobodythatmatters said:

Matt G said: Hey, what ever happened to those secret labs where ID research was being conducted? They had to be hidden so evolution supporters couldn't find them and cause trouble.

They hid them so well the ID researchers couldn't find them either. The poor ID researchers have been wandering around, lost in the parking lot for 20 years. Someone should bring them a club sandwich (but don't let them ask for no mayo. a club sandwich is irreducibly complex).

Just Bob said:

Doc Bill said: I first encountered FL back in the Kansas Citizens for Science days and he hasn't changed a bit since then. Hasn't learned anything, hasn't changed his tune. Same old FL.

That's why I ignore him, although I often read others' responses That, and the fact that he's a bigoted turd.

Steve P. said: Oh, you mean Dawkins, PZ, and Coyne? Why, naturally they are doing science whereas Dembski, Marks, Ewert, Behe, Myers and Durston are not. Clear as a bell.

Richard B. Hoppe said: Easy. Just look for the ones who are doing science, as distinguished from those who snipe from the sidelines.

FL said:

The real scientific community

How odd that you felt compelled to employ a qualifier, instead of just saying "the scientific community." So tell me -- how do you objectively and rationally distinquish "the real scientific community" from "the scientific community"? FL

Tenncrain said: ...but also Ken Miller, and Keith Miller (geologist at Kansas State University), Francisco J. Ayala (genetics professor, a key lead expert witness for plaintiffs in Mclean v. Arkansas court case inwhich the plaintiffs successfully stopped so-called 'creation science'), Frances Collins (who led the Human Genome Project among other endeavors), etc, etc. These and other scientists routinely publish their scientific research in mainstream peer-review journals and are also theists yet they reject ID and other variations of creationism as pseudoscience. Ogremk5 and others have already addressed some of the ID "scientists" you listed. As least Michael Behe has published a moderate number of legit science (non-ID) articles in legit mainstream science journals. But Behe also admitted this under oath at Kitzmiller trial: "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred"

Steve P. said: Oh, you mean Dawkins, PZ, and Coyne? Why, naturally they are doing science whereas Dembski, Marks, Ewert, Behe, Myers and Durston are not. Clear as a bell.

Richard B. Hoppe said: Easy. Just look for the ones who are doing science, as distinguished from those who snipe from the sidelines.

FL said:

The real scientific community

How odd that you felt compelled to employ a qualifier, instead of just saying "the scientific community." So tell me -- how do you objectively and rationally distinquish "the real scientific community" from "the scientific community"? FL

What, Dembski/Marks/Ewert/Durston/Myer are not doing research?? Oh, right their works doesn’t count because its all LIES, LIES, and more LIES!!!!!!!!! Darwinian evolution is TRUTH, baby!

...Dembski now tours churches, charging money to give talks about how ID proves God, but simultaneously, how ID really isn't about religion so can be taught in public schools.

Yeah, I chased him around with Flud calculations for a while and he would never give me an answer to where the water came from and where it went.

Liar for Jesus whined:

Yeah, I chased him around with Flud calculations for a while and he would never give me an answer to where the water came from and where it went.

Then you missed a certain piece of information (or two) Doc, but I'm putting it on the BW because this thread is not about the Noahic Flood. You won't agree with that info, but let's see if you even read it or not. FL