Intelligent Design is not creationism

[john dough]

Quote from Haroki:

JD -

ZZ and Teleologist are the same guy, different alias.

Quit wasting your time...

Really? That's fascinating.

Z never presents any science and clings to a singular circular logic to support his conclusion.

Teleologist has presented at least one attempt to prove his point with a peer-reviewed article. Although, it does appear that he may not have actually read the article before presenting it, because it doesn't really support his position.

Oh well, I guess I'm wasting my time, here. Thanks for the info.

 

[Teleologist]

Anyone that thinks Teleologist and ZZZ are same person is an idiot. There is clear distinction between our posts as John has noted.

 

[Haroki]

Tell that to Kjent......

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

I continue to repeat the points that you avoid dealing with...

Namely there is no evidence that change is random, and not designed.

There is only lack of evidence of a designer, because you have no test for a designer, and a lack of evidence is not proof of non design. It is the ostrich argument...

Quote from john dough:

Arguing with you is pointless, because you don't actually respond to any point that I make. You just keep repeating the same thing, as if I have said nothing at all. Nothing productive can come of this, so, I'll try to discuss the issue with some of the others here who actually attempt to address the issue, rather than with someone who prefers to simply bulldoze his opinion over that of others.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

The full on ad hominem starts from the so called "reasonable" "logical" scientific ET members.

Classic...

Score one for the fallacy crew...

 

[Teleologist]

John Dough wrote:

Refuting YEC rules out a particular theory of design proposed by a particular group of design theorists. As previously stated, no scientific experiment can absolutely rule out anything --design included. So, your request is silly.

No, it's your reasoning that is silly. Refuting YEC rules out certain tenets of young earth creationism such as the fixity of species and an earth just 6,000-10,000 years old but it doesn't touch design per se. Modern design hypotheses posit that life is the product of advanced bioengineering and that evolution was front-loaded such that its unfolding was channeled.

 

[john dough]

Quote from Teleologist:

John Dough wrote:
[]quote]Refuting YEC rules out a particular theory of design proposed by a particular group of design theorists. As previously stated, no scientific experiment can absolutely rule out anything --design included. So, your request is silly.

No, it's your reasoning that is silly. Refuting YEC rules out certain tenets of young earth creationism such as the fixity of species and an earth just 6,000-10,000 years old but it doesn't touch design per se. Modern design hypotheses posit that life is the product of advanced bioengineering and that evolution was front-loaded such that its unfolding was channeled. [/QUOTE]

First you admit that certain tenents of YEC are refuted; then you deny that design is touched. YEC claims a designer created the Earth 6,000 years ago, and the geological evidence demonstrates that this is false. Thus, this is a design theory and it is refuted.

Your second statement is a totally different issue. You state a hypothesis that life is the product of advanced bioengineering and that evolution was front loaded. This is actually two different hypotheses. Regardless, in order to convert the hypotheses to science you must conduct an experiment to verify your hypothesis.

So, once again, I will ask you: what is that experiment?

 

[john dough]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

The full on ad hominem starts from the so called "reasonable" "logical" scientific ET members.

Classic...

Score one for the fallacy crew...

OK, here, I'll challenge you to a duel, Z.

Each of us gets to ask the other a question in turn. There are only three possible responses to any question:

1. Yes
2. No
3. I don't know.

No amplification of any answer is permitted.

If a person answers "I don't know," then the other person gets to ask another question, until there is either a "Yes" or "No" response from the person who said "I don't know."

First person who answers in any way other than the above loses.

If you accept, I'll keep discussing the issue with you. If not, then you can argue with others, because from my perspective, you are not actually discussing anything -- you're just repeating the same thing over and over -- so there's nothing really to discuss.

 

[Haroki]

Quote from john dough:

OK, here, I'll challenge you to a duel, Z.

Each of us gets to ask the other a question in turn. There are only three possible responses to any question:

1. Yes
2. No
3. I don't know.

No amplification of any answer is permitted.

If a person answers "I don't know," then the other person gets to ask another question, until there is either a "Yes" or "No" response from the person who said "I don't know."

First person who answers in any way other than the above loses.

If you accept, I'll keep discussing the issue with you. If not, then you can argue with others, because from my perspective, you are not actually discussing anything -- you're just repeating the same thing over and over -- so there's nothing really to discuss.

LOL

Good luck with that. Although it looks like the light bulb may have just popped on for you, regarding the debating style of the guy....

 

[Teleologist]

John Dough wrote:

Teleologist has presented at least one attempt to prove his point with a peer-reviewed article. Although, it does appear that he may not have actually read the article before presenting it, because it doesn't really support his position.

I read the article and I doubt that you understand my position. In any event, you were claiming that the evolutionary process is random. The article I posted refutes this. I don't see how it can be made any more explicit. The title of the article is:

A Biochemical Mechanism for Non-random Mutations and Evolution

What part of non-random don't you understand?

Do you think the introduction contradicts what follows?

The introduction says:

Weismann, the father of neo-Darwinism, decided late in his career that directed variation must be invoked to understand some phenomena, as random variation and selection alone are not a sufficient explanation.

This flat out refutes your contention that evolution is random.

Another quote from the introduction:

This minireview will describe mechanisms of mutation that are not random and can accelerate the process of evolution in specific directions. The existence of such mechanisms has been predicted by mathematicians who argue that, if every mutation were really random and had to be tested against the environment for selection or rejection, there would not have been enough time to evolve the extremely complex biochemical networks and regulatory mechanisms found in organisms today.

Once again, this refutes your claim that evolution is random. Evolution uses mechanisms that are not random and that guide evolution in specific directions.