Coming out as creationists: fear.

[Guy Threepwood]

The alternate hypotheses are not scientific. That's the point. Why should scientists have to consider dogmatic religious beliefs that don't follow the scientific method?

Again you are paraphrasing Hoyle on the Big Bang. The method is not simply labeling things 'scientific' or 'unscientific' depending on your preferences.

Is recognizing intelligent design in the Rosetta stone a dogmatic religious belief?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You are changing the subject. You were claiming that evolution wasn't tangible. Would you now agree that evolution is tangible?

same subject- the wholesale returns of conjecture from a trifling investment of fact..

It is an inherently speculative, academic theory, not an empirically demonstrable process

 

[Subduction Zone]

same subject- the wholesale returns of conjecture from a trifling investment of fact..

It is an inherently speculative, academic theory, not an empirically demonstrable process

Of course it is "empirically demonstrable". Creationists merely want a demonstration that would ironically refute the theory.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Again you are paraphrasing Hoyle on the Big Bang. The method is not simply labeling things 'scientific' or 'unscientific' depending on your preferences.

Is recognizing intelligent design in the Rosetta stone a dogmatic religious belief?

You are changing the subject from biology to history. You seem to change the subject a lot.

ID/creationism in the field of biology does not follow the scientific method. If you think I am wrong then present a testable and falsifiable hypothesis from ID/creationism that uses empirical and objective data. Show us the hypotheses that scientists are supposedly ignoring.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

same subject-

False. You constantly change the subject when you are proved wrong. Fossils are very tangible, and the theory of evolution explains why we see what we do.

the wholesale returns of conjecture from a trifling investment of fact..

What conjecture? You can see right in front of you a gradual change in fossils from ape like to human like. No conjecture.

It is an inherently speculative, academic theory, not an empirically demonstrable process

We can directly observe the production of phylogenies in living populations which is an empirically demonstrable process.

mtDNA phylogeny and evolution of laboratory mouse strains

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You are changing the subject from biology to history. You seem to change the subject a lot.

ID/creationism in the field of biology does not follow the scientific method. If you think I am wrong then present a testable and falsifiable hypothesis from ID/creationism that uses empirical and objective data. Show us the hypotheses that scientists are supposedly ignoring.

It's called analogy

What empirical objective data tells us the Rosetta stone did not fluke itself into existence? The specified information it contains, the higher probability that intelligent agency was involved. That's the subject. This is not a religious or supernatural argument, information is something we understand much better today than in Darwins'

intelligent agency leaves it's own distinct fingerprint which we are learning to recognize with increasing accuracy. Ask a forensic scientist.. In the case of evolution, we have forensic scientists who are restrained to a conclusion of 'accident' no matter if the guy has a knife in his back- he must have fallen on it!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

False. You constantly change the subject when you are proved wrong. Fossils are very tangible, and the theory of evolution explains why we see what we do.



What conjecture? You can see right in front of you a gradual change in fossils from ape like to human like. No conjecture.

And we can see the gradual change from model Ts to Mustangs.. conjecture would be to say that the former design morphed into the latter through accidental copying errors in the plans.

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

It's called analogy

It's not called a scientific hypothesis. This is why ID/creationism is not accepted by scientists.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

And we can see the gradual change from model Ts to Mustangs..

Cars don't form a nested hierarchy. Life does.

the conjecture would be that the former design morphed into the latter through accidental copying errors in the plans.

It isn't conjecture. We have the evidence that random mutation is responsible for the genetic differences between species. You can check it out in my other thread:

The Evidence for Random Mutations

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

That's exactly what we have.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It's not called a scientific hypothesis. This is why ID/creationism is not accepted by scientists.

it is by many, not the majority at present, but nether was the BB or QM, so apparently that's a promising indicator!

Real science is not decided by who has the biggest scientist army. It doesn't take 1000 scientists to prove me wrong, it takes one fact as Einstein said

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Cars don't form a nested hierarchy. Life does.



It isn't conjecture. We have the evidence that random mutation is responsible for the genetic differences between species. You can check it out in my other thread:

The Evidence for Random Mutations



That's exactly what we have.

random selection is responsible for the tile pattern on my bathroom wall- that doesn't mean they accidentally glued themselves up there.

Randomization of parameters within specified ranges is a necessary design feature of many products, it's not a comprehensive design mechanism.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

it is by many, not the majority at present, but nether was the BB or QM, so apparently that's a promising indicator!

The Big Bang theory and quantum mechanics are based on tons of testable hypotheses. For example, the Big Bang theory predicts that distance to a galaxy will correlate with a wavelength independent redshift. That is imminently testable, and could be falsified by numerous deviations from the predicted correlation.

Real science is not decided by who has the biggest scientist army. It doesn't take 1000 scientists to prove me wrong, it takes one fact as Einstein said

Real science requires the use of the scientific method which ID/creationists aren't doing.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

random selection is responsible for the tile pattern on my bathroom wall- that doesn't mean they accidentally glued themselves up there.

We can directly observe mutations occurring naturally, or were you unaware of this fact?

Randomization of parameters within specified ranges is a necessary design feature of many products, it's not a comprehensive design mechanism.

It is also a parameter of natural processes which is what we see occurring with respect to mutations.

 

[Jose Fly]

It's called analogy

Exactly.

Guy has me on ignore (because I exposed the fundamental flaw in his "argument from cars in junkyards"), but everyone here should note how Guy can only advocate for ID creationism by analogies. He can't point to something in biology that he's determined to be "designed" and describe the method he used to reach that conclusion. As @Thermos aquaticus has shown in this recent exchange, Guy can't even articulate a testable hypothesis for ID creationism.

Instead, all he can do is talk about Rosetta Stones, cars in junkyards, and a logical fallacy about Fred Hoyle.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The Big Bang theory and quantum mechanics are based on tons of testable hypotheses. For example, the Big Bang theory predicts that distance to a galaxy will correlate with a wavelength independent redshift. That is imminently testable, and could be falsified by numerous deviations from the predicted correlation.

sure, but steady state theory incorporated that same evidence into an eternal model. The CMBR didn't cut it for Hoyle either. If you like a theory enough, you can work around anything. And if you spent half your life mocking the competing theory... you are pretty much obliged to

Real science requires the use of the scientific method which ID/creationists aren't doing.

sticks and stones

Actually ID uses the same scientific method explicitly adopted by Darwin, that we should look for known mechanisms currently in operation to explain the past.

Solving the DNA puzzle is an information technology problem, argue that with Dawkins if you like. So far we can only identify one mechanism by which such systems can be originated. Again this is not to say 'nature' is impossible, I've nothing personal against that explanation- I do not consider Darwinism 'pseudoscience' or 'irrational' .. it's just looking more and more problematic- as steady state and Newtonian physics did, and the same emotions and claims of 'unscientific' get thrown around when beloved theories are challenged.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Exactly.

Guy has me on ignore (because I exposed the fundamental flaw in his "argument from cars in junkyards"), but everyone here should note how Guy can only advocate for ID creationism by analogies. He can't point to something in biology that he's determined to be "designed" and describe the method he used to reach that conclusion. As @Thermos aquaticus has shown in this recent exchange, Guy can't even articulate a testable hypothesis for ID creationism.

Instead, all he can do is talk about Rosetta Stones, cars in junkyards, and a logical fallacy about Fred Hoyle.

It is worth pointing out that not a single theory in science is solely supported by analogy. Not a one. In science, analogies are used to help explain a theory, not to support a theory or test a theory.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

sure, but steady state theory incorporated that same evidence into an eternal model.

The problem with the steady state theory is that it didn't have a source for new matter, nor could it explain the atomic makeup of the universe. The BB theory explains both.

Big Bang Nucleosynthesis

The BB theory is the preferred theory because it is able to explain all of the observations while the steady state theory can not.

If you like a theory enough, you can work around anything. And ff you spent half your life mocking the alternative... you are obliged to

Now we get the usual accusations of scientists doing bad science without any evidence to back it up. This is why creationists are not taken seriously by the scientific community.

Actually ID uses the same scientific method explicitly adopted by Darwin, that we should look for known mechanisms currently in operation to explain the past.

The problem is that ID doesn't do that. ID can't explain the nested hierarchy, the divergence of exons and introns, and a whole host of other observations in biology.

Solving the DNA puzzle is an information technology problem, argue that with Dawkins if you like. So far we can only identify one mechanism by which such systems can be originated. Again this is not to say 'nature' is impossible, I've nothing personal against that explanation- I do not consider Darwinism 'pseudoscience' or 'irrational' .. it's just looking more and more problematic- as steady state and Newtonian physics did, and the same emotions and claims of 'unscientific' get thrown around when beloved theories are challenged.

Again, ID can't explain the observations. If you think I am wrong, go to the thread below and describe for us what ID predicts with respect to exons and introns:

ID/creationism can't explain exon and intron divergence

For that matter, what explanation does ID/creationism have for the observation that transition mutations outnumber transversion mutations in a comparison of the human and chimp genomes, and why do CpG mutations outnumber all other mutations per available base?

The Evidence for Random Mutations

ID/creationism is unscientific because it can't make testable and falsifiable predictions with respect to these observations.

 

[Audie]

It's called analogy

What empirical objective data tells us the Rosetta stone did not fluke itself into existence? The specified information it contains, the higher probability that intelligent agency was involved. That's the subject. This is not a religious or supernatural argument, information is something we understand much better today than in Darwins'

intelligent agency leaves it's own distinct fingerprint which we are learning to recognize with increasing accuracy. Ask a forensic scientist.. In the case of evolution, we have forensic scientists who are restrained to a conclusion of 'accident' no matter if the guy has a knife in his back- he must have fallen on it!

Odd how you complain about "conjecture" but feel free to simply make things up.

 

[Audie]

Exactly.

Guy has me on ignore (because I exposed the fundamental flaw in his "argument from cars in junkyards"), but everyone here should note how Guy can only advocate for ID creationism by analogies. He can't point to something in biology that he's determined to be "designed" and describe the method he used to reach that conclusion. As @Thermos aquaticus has shown in this recent exchange, Guy can't even articulate a testable hypothesis for ID creationism.

Instead, all he can do is talk about Rosetta Stones, cars in junkyards, and a logical fallacy about Fred Hoyle.

In my case I suspect it is because he ( like another
here, who gets very excited when I poke holes in
what he says) dont like a mere (awful alien atheist besides) girl to know more than he does.
So it is ig city.

Ostensibly, it is because something I said was a-gasp-
ad hom and I wont apologize.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The problem with the steady state theory is that it didn't have a source for new matter, nor could it explain the atomic makeup of the universe. The BB theory explains both.

Big Bang Nucleosynthesis

The BB theory is the preferred theory because it is able to explain all of the observations while the steady state theory can not.

Agreed, and the same goes for ID v Darwinism, (I would submit to you!) we only have one known way to explain the observations of life at the level of the digital information systems Darwin never dreamed of, far less offered a solution for.

Now we get the usual accusations of scientists doing bad science without any evidence to back it up. This is why creationists are not taken seriously by the scientific community.

agreed again, and that's why Lemaitre was not taken seriously by the scientific community either. Absolutely Hoyle and many others were doing bad science, based explicitly on adhering to personal atheist beliefs, rather than where the evidence led

The problem is that ID doesn't do that. ID can't explain the nested hierarchy, the divergence of exons and introns, and a whole host of other observations in biology.

Again, ID can't explain the observations. If you think I am wrong, go to the thread below and describe for us what ID predicts with respect to exons and introns:

ID/creationism can't explain exon and intron divergence

By "ID/creationism" I mean those who reject common ancestry

^ there's your trouble. ID explicitly does not reject common ancestry, if you want to lump it in with creationism you are creating your own confusion there

For that matter, what explanation does ID/creationism have for the observation that transition mutations outnumber transversion mutations in a comparison of the human and chimp genomes, and why do CpG mutations outnumber all other mutations per available base?

The Evidence for Random Mutations

ID/creationism is unscientific because it can't make testable and falsifiable predictions with respect to these observations.

ID predicts that DNA operates very much like an intelligently designed hardware/software system, only far more sophisticated, with no viable natural origin that can be established.

It predicted for instance that we should find error checking systems, that junk DNA isn't junk after all, that the gaps and jumps in the records are real, not artifacts-
all lucky guesses perhaps?