Why are Darwinists Afraid to Debate Us?

[Wowbagger]

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

Sure it does.

How?

Specifically, how does the hypothesis of ID suggest areas of further study? (Not some on-the-side concepts they might be working on, in other fields and theories.)

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.

My use of the word "unused" did not mean to imply they actually believe the stuff was completely unused. My point was that the very concept of even finding the "junk" was predicted by the theory of evolution, at least once the structure of genes was found. ID never made a prediction that powerful - in fact it never makes any testable predictions at all.

And, might I add, a lot of uses for the junk DNA came only after it was introduced, in other words the formerly-useless junk was co-opted into becoming somewhat useful, often by accident. And, incidentally, much of its "usage" is redundant to other sections of DNA, so we could live without that bit of junk, if we had to.
It is not like much of that junk came about specifically to serve any purpose.

Evolution predicted all that I said above. What new insights has ID got to offer?

 

[thaiboxerken]

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

He's already destroyed their arguments and claims. What he can't do with his evidence is make them STFU. The creationists have lost the "debate" on the basis of evidence and rational arguments, but they are still strong on a political basis.

 

[Civilized Worm]

I just don't think that the discussion need be so one sided that we can't try to understand a competing theory.

I would a agree if there were a competing theory, what they have is a MYTH.

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

Fair enough, but (assuming you believe in god) do you believe that god has a special interest in the human race?

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.

I've already linked to an article outlining his reasons for not debating creationists twice but you have clearly refused to read it. Your idea that presenting evidence will destroy irrational beliefs is charmingly naive but if the world really worked like that then this forum wouldn't exist.


Here's the article once again just in case the third time really is the charm: http://pages.sbcglobal.net/amun_ra/

 

[Mercutio]

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.

Refusal = fear?

I am so sorry, then--I thought you merely refused to comment on the articles you post; I had not realized that you were afraid to. My apologies.

This is an interesting article.

 

[Hokulele]

Refusal = fear?

I am so sorry, then--I thought you merely refused to comment on the articles you post; I had not realized that you were afraid to. My apologies.

This is an interesting article.

I too am sorry that the co-author of the letter to the New York Review of Books never got a chance to review and revise the original draft. The final draft from both authors truly would have been interesting.

 

[Civilized Worm]

Three posts in a row, surely he HAS to read it now!

 

[Lonewulf]

I find this article very interesting. I don't have any opinion of my own.

Creationists are Morons.

Nope, no opinion of my own.

Except that creationists and IDers are morons.

But that's it.

 

[articulett]

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.

When has masses of evidence ever held a candle to "faith"...especially with those who think that such "faith" is the key to their salvation? You do realize that some people cannot be convinced no matter how much evidence there is.

You, for example.

What would convince you that evolution is as factual as all the scientists (except for a few religious whack jobs) consider it to be? You do know about the similarities of the chimp and human genome don't you--the chromosome 2 thing? The vitamin C gene? I don't understand how the evidence could be more compelling, but more data just keeps flowing in.

You do understand that there is a lot of suffering and that men make about 2000 BILLION extra sperm in a lifetime than they'll need to father the one or two people who will be born and presume that the world started at their birth (until educated to understand otherwise.) You do understand that you were a hiccup away from not existing...but that you may be the only entity in the universe who thinks that you, in particular, were "meant to be"--given life for a purpose. Do you actually believe that the omniscient invisible one gets involved in peoples' sex lives?

Damn, you just seem so dumb sometimes. Over 10,000 posts of endless preaching and you never hear anything. You are the best example as to why one shouldn't expect rational debate from the irrational. Years of posting on a skeptics forum and not a single clue. If you didn't have such a severe case of anasognosia, you might actually recognize yourself in my sig article--and conclude that it would take the same amount of evidence to convince an ID enthusiast as it would to convince you. And yet, a scientist, would merely need one piece of actual evidence such as a divine guy owning up to the act complete with detailed DNA info...or at least something that couldn't possibly be explained without needing to invoke magic...or how about a holy text with actually prescient scientific claims? Maybe, he could give us a magic map of where we can find the best fossils? It's easy to convince the rational--all it takes is measurable, replicable evidence. DI hasn't any--so they aim to obfuscate.

(Does Thai ever read his responses? Or does has his faith based confirmation bias make him totally impervious to fact that negate his favorite delusions? Does anyone feel like Thai has ever understood them or the basics of science in all of his over 10,000 posts?)

 

[articulett]

Refusal = fear?

I am so sorry, then--I thought you merely refused to comment on the articles you post; I had not realized that you were afraid to. My apologies.

This is an interesting article.

I guess Sylvia Browne is "afraid" of Randi.

And Thai is afraid of facts--avoids them like a plague. He expects his inane opinions and links to be taken seriously without even bothering to read anything from the far more intelligent for fear that it might "shake his faith". Thai is afraid of eternal damnation from biting from the tree of knowledge. He's too fearful and faith infested to ever evolve in his thinking.

It's so sad, really. But I'm sure his guardian angels and spiritual guides and imaginary friends are all on his side.

 

[thaiboxerken]

(Does Thai ever read his responses? Or does has his faith based confirmation bias make him totally impervious to fact that negate his favorite delusions? Does anyone feel like Thai has ever understood them or the basics of science in all of his over 10,000 posts?)

It's T'ai without the "h". And yes, he does read his responses, he just ignores most of them and only responds to the ones he can whine about. Facts don't bother him.

 

[Porterboy]

The late comedian Bill Hicks makes a brillianty parody of creationism. He says:

"I asked a Christian how he thought the world was made and he said: 'Well it was done in six days 6003 years ago'. I said 'Well how do you explain the dinosaur bones then?' He said "God put those there to test our faith!'. WHEW! I think God put you here to test mine! Am I the only person who's the least bit bothered by the fact that God is f***ing with our heads!?" He then does a mime of God tip-toeing around the world covertly burying dinosaur bones everywhere. "Ho ho ho! We'll see who believes in me now!"

Classic!

 

[strathmeyer]

An amount of my personal being rejects to T'ai Chi calling it junk.

 

[articulett]

It's T'ai without the "h". And yes, he does read his responses, he just ignores most of them and only responds to the ones he can whine about. Facts don't bother him.

I apologize! I can see why you'd be offended. T'ai Chi--right? There is an h in there, but my brain just inserted it in the wrong place. 30 cyber lashes for me.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

Oh please! Do you really think that creationist will be swayed by evidence? They've got religious conviction. They aren't interested in modifying their beliefs to conform with facts. They modify facts to conform with their beliefs. Just look at any of DavidJayJordan's threads. There's someone who exemplifies the practice of rejecting and even ignoring any facts that do not conform with what he wants to believe. That's the problem in a nutshell: Creationists want to believe that God did it. They want it more than anything. They will not accept evidence that contradicts what they want to believe. Dawkins can scientifically demolish all the ID and or YEC claims he has the energy to take on yet they will still keep denying anything they don't wish to be true.

 

[tsig]

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.

What does junk DNA have to do with anything?

You are a parasite of science.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

Not being Wowbagger of course, but I will comment, junk DNA is conserved. That suggests it has a role. If it didn't then one would expect to see random mutations everywhere in it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

He's already destroyed their arguments and claims. What he can't do with his evidence is make them STFU. The creationists have lost the "debate" on the basis of evidence and rational arguments, but they are still strong on a political basis.

Adding to what thaib said, the scientific community left ID in the dust more than 40 years ago, TC. 'You people' are holding out because you haven't figured out how to make the Original Sin and Jesus stories fit with the observable evidence. That's just too big a step for some Christian theists. You can't face reality so you just deny it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

The Wedge Strategy of the Discovery Institute is to make the debate appear to be about competing theories. That gives their myth credibility. It argues using the assumption ID is a competing theory. But that's the catch. ID is not a competing theory.

Irreducible Complexity was an hypothesis. From that, and a few more proposed hypotheses that evolution theory failed for this or that reason, the claim was then made these hypotheses if valid suggested a designer rather than random processes. But the hypotheses have all been thoroughly discredited. There is overwhelming evidence none of the hypotheses put forth by Behe or any other ID proselytizer has ever been supported by years of them trying.

In addition, we've made tremendous advances in genetic science that simply put those questions to rest decades (and I do mean decades) ago.

So what the Discovery Institute advertises is a competing theory in articles like the one in the OP and by constant public claims their science is being ignored, is really just a handful of disproved hypotheses. They failed to establish a scientific basis for ID. But they cleverly claim the basis is there and being excluded. It just isn't true. Nothing is being excluded. It isn't supportable with any evidence that stands up to a closer look.

 

[Dancing David]

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?

Not what I said at all, show the research that the IDers have?

Show where they have a point of contention? Show where they have a research paper in the last five years? Show whwere they have a leg to stand on?

Is what the claim of the IDers?

 

[Dancing David]

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?

Can't and won't answer the original article at the OP? Wherein they state that they "are afraid to debate us" or that they were censored? Care to discuss the original link in your OP? And the post I made in response to it. the one where I talk about your OP?

Or adress the critiques of other articles you have linked to.

Lets us start with the OP, I wouldn't want you to look dishonest and as though you are the one avoiding debate.