Why are Darwinists Afraid to Debate Us?

[T'ai Chi]

Just to summarise T'ai Chi's total contribution to his "itneresting" thread with the only other link being total garbage.

If anyone is in any doubt as to why the ID proponents are not worth the time to "debate" it may help.

TC brings nothing of any value to the topic and never has.
...
For TC, assuming for a moment, in some bizarre, wacky TC world where lies and deceit constitute proper scientific evidence, that ID is actually correct.

More talk about the article; less talk about you pretending to 'get' me, please?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Regards the OP: To say that DI is disengenous is like saying Tai Chi is a slimy wriggly little eel - it's axiomatic.

Please stick to talking about the article contents. Examples like yours and "h3ll" aren't really helping the non-DI responses.

 

[CFLarsen]

Please stick to talking about the article contents. Examples like yours and "h3ll" aren't really helping the non-DI responses.

Stick to talking about the article contents, then.

What do you have to say about that?

 

[Wowbagger]

You picked a bad example:

Where has an ID proponent stated (not just a silly strawman) that there are no areas for further study in what they do?

It looks like their looking very closely at "junk" DNA, for example.

The hypothesis of ID does not suggest any areas of further study in "junk" DNA. And, "Junk" DNA was not even discovered by an ID advocate: its existence was predicted by evolutionary theory (if mutations are "random", we should therefore find evidence of genetic drift in the form of unused DNA fragments), and its confirmed discovery was by real biologists.

Furthermore, it was the work of those biologists who made suggestions on how we can study the phenomenon further, not the creationists (who, by the way, initially thought the idea was preposterous: God wouldn't waste material like that).

If any ID advocates are looking further into "junk" DNA, perhaps through information theory or whatever, it is not through the theory of Intelligent Design.

Do you have a better example you can offer to us?

 

[T'ai Chi]

The hypothesis of ID does not suggest any areas of further study in "junk" DNA.

Sure it does.

And, "Junk" DNA was not even discovered by an ID advocate: its existence was predicted by evolutionary theory (if mutations are "random", we should therefore find evidence of genetic drift in the form of unused DNA fragments), and its confirmed discovery was by real biologists.

But there's where you're missing the point. "Unused", as far as I am aware, is not believed by the movement. They posit uses in these junk DNA. It seems that more uses are being found each day.

 

[Porterboy]

And what point would that be then? That we all came about by magic?





Doesn't really gel with the whole "making man in his own image" stuff though does it? If humans were what he want why waste billions of years with dinosaurs and stuff?

Exactly why I don't believe in the Bible story of creation.

 

[Dancing David]

Well they are careful never to mention G-d specifically. Austere ID theory says it could be aliens or whatever.

They point out things like the Flagellum and Bombardier beetle which exhibit what they call "irreducible complexity", which is a system of discreet elements that work together in a way that could not possibly have come from natural selection. The concept is fine. In fact it shows that they understand evolution, because they understand its limits. The mechanism of the flagellum has been more deeply investigated and it does not seem to be a good candidate for an irreducibly complex system. I have yet to hear of a good explanation of how the bombardier beetle's defense organ might have evolved(not that I doubt that one day we will have one).

Go easy people, I'm just explaining their thought process. I don't go for it either. I just don't think that the discussion need be so one sided that we can't try to understand a competing theory.

Hiya Whitey,

You are new to this forum so I will be kind to you.

they haven't got a theory. the hypothesis they do have is untestable.

They have yet to present either a valid argument for the complexity issue or any of the 'holes' in evolutionary history.

They have only the ability to say "I don't believe that to be true".

There have been huge discussions of DNA and RNA on this board and how the argument does not apply to them either.

There is no theory, there is no data, there is no nothing other than :"I don't believe it".

We do understand thier arguments, they don't work.


So why don't you present one these compelling argumenst that supports one of thier lacking theories and we will demolish it. Based upon undersatnding.


Here are just two of the about twenty recent threads:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79256

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78253

 

[Dancing David]

Where has an ID proponent stated (not just a silly strawman) that there are no areas for further study in what they do?

It looks like their looking very closely at "junk" DNA, for example.

It looks as though they don't


CITE THE REASEARCH, CITE THE DATA.

You can't you won't, you are a troll.

 

[Dancing David]

More talk about the article; less talk about you pretending to 'get' me, please?

Huh, the article that says they were censored and afraid to be debated?

The one where they tried to get people arrested for handing out flyers about the conference?

What eveidence is there taht they were censored? What evidence is there that there are people afraid to debate them?

I did respond to your article, and as usual you ignore what i posted.

 

[Dancing David]

Sure it does.



But there's where you're missing the point. "Unused", as far as I am aware, is not believed by the movement. They posit uses in these junk DNA. It seems that more uses are being found each day.

The movement?

What research, what data? What sources?

Can't and won't answer?

 

[CFLarsen]

Sure it does.

As the Creationist you are, you just dogmatically state that it does. You don't explain how, why or where.

IT! JUST! DOES!

So said THE LORD.

But there's where you're missing the point. "Unused", as far as I am aware, is not believed by the movement. They posit uses in these junk DNA. It seems that more uses are being found each day.

O....K. You argue that there is no "junk" DNA. Because everything is accounted for.

So said THE LORD.

What do you have to say about the article's contents?

 

[Dr Adequate]

How would ID based research into junk DNA differ from the approach a mainstream biochemist would take?

A mainstream biologist would do actual research into junk DNA.

An IDer would wait for a real scientist to do the research and then claim that the results that he failed to predict prove that he was right all along.

 

[Dr Adequate]

They point out things like the Flagellum and Bombardier beetle which exhibit what they call "irreducible complexity", which is a system of discreet elements that work together in a way that could not possibly have come from natural selection.

The definition of an irreducibly complex system is a system where the removal of any one part stops the system from working.

Such systems can and do evolve, 'cos there's absolutely nothing to prevent this.

 

[T'ai Chi]

It looks as though they don't

CITE THE REASEARCH, CITE THE DATA.

You can't you won't, you are a troll.

Well first let's look at the original claim, where it was said IDers say that there are no areas for further study in what they do.

You wouldn't want to be hypocritical now, would you?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Can't and won't answer?

Given that you posted this post only minutes after your previous one, isn't that a little dishonest to try and make it look that I'm not able to answer?

 

[ChristineR]

Talk Origins on the evolution of the Bombardier beetle.

Talk Origins is an amazing site which basically gives the lie to the "they won't talk about it" claim. Every creationist and ID claim is demolished on that site. They also go into some detail why some scientists have stopped debating creationists. You can win a debate and still be wrong.

 

[T'ai Chi]

What evidence is there that there are people afraid to debate them?

Well, Dawkins for one apparently refuses.

If he weren't afraid, he'd go do it and destroy the whole ID movement with his masses of evidence.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Wowbagger, do you believe junk DNA is unused? Yes or no?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

By the way, I find "Darwinism" and "Darwinist" to be loaded terms. It implies that accepting Darwin's theory is a belief system, which it's not. It would be similar to referring classical physics as "Newtonism".

Note: there is a difference between "Newtonian physics" / "Darwinian evolution" and "Newtonism" / "Darwinism". I have no problem with the former usages, just the latter.

Another reason for blowing off these sorts of debates is that it takes a lot longer to refute or debunk the absurd assertions of ID than it does to spout off those assertions. Inevitably time is more of a problem for the person debunking the ID claims, and the claimant can easily spew a whole barrage of these assertions (some of which are flat out lies, that still take time to debunk). In the end, there is only time to explain why some of the assertions are wrong, and you're left with the implied acceptance of the others.

(The point raised in the last paragraph is not original to me, but I'll be darned if I can remember where I read that.)

And finally, I would respond to the original question with this challenge: why isn't ID "science" published in peer-reviewed mainstream journals? That's the method of advancing science--not debates or even polls.

 

[CFLarsen]

Given that you posted this post only minutes after your previous one, isn't that a little dishonest to try and make it look that I'm not able to answer?

You have had the time by now. When are you going to answer?

Well, Dawkins for one apparently refuses.

If he weren't afraid, he'd go do it and destroy the whole ID movement with his masses of evidence.

You think Dawkins is afraid of Creationists??

Wowbagger, do you believe junk DNA is unused? Yes or no?

Don't you understand how the term is used? It isn't because scientists have declared that the DNA isn't used at all - it's because they haven't found that it is used so far.