IDiotic
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-09-2016, 02:47 AM
IDiotic
One particularly annoying form of IDicy goes something along these lines. (warning snarky Idiot impression ahead)

"See ID makes predictions if Darwinism were right i should be able to explain everything by it mechanism and if it can't then ID wins because we can say it was all created at once by our mysterious magic designer somehow . "

This is dumb of course there was a time were the study of evolution was far less complete then it currently is. If we had assumed this mind set at the beginning we would have never reached our current point of understanding. We would have just nope evolution can't explain it now so lets give up. Instead we pressed on and found a answer via the study of evolution.As i predict we will with most of these so called gaps in evolution. And no this is not a evolution of the gaps i don't presuppose evolution will solve the problem i merely look to it's track record of resolving things. And look at ID's foolish amounts of wishful thinking and mental masturbation. And resolve ones a sound method if incomplete and the other pie in the daydreaming a vain rationalizations. Lastly the IDiot is assuming that science must always have the answer now. Rejecting the notion that scientific advance can take years even decades. But when your answers is magic somehow fairy dust i suppose this lack of patience is to be expected.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like OrdoSkeptica's post
22-09-2016, 03:16 AM
RE: IDiotic
ID doesn't make predictions. All is does, all it has ever done, is be a negative proposition. "If evolutionary theory cannot explain it, then it was designed."


Well, what can design tell us about biology? What can we infer about the designer? What predictions can ID make? The answer is 'nothing' on all accounts.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like EvolutionKills's post
22-09-2016, 06:17 AM
RE: IDiotic
The "gaps" in "God of the gaps" refers to the dentition of the fundy.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Gawdzilla's post
22-09-2016, 08:27 PM
RE: IDiotic
(22-09-2016 03:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ID doesn't make predictions. All is does, all it has ever done, is be a negative proposition. "If evolutionary theory cannot explain it, then it was designed."


Well, what can design tell us about biology? What can we infer about the designer? What predictions can ID make? The answer is 'nothing' on all accounts.

Actually, ID ought to make a fair number of predictions if it were an actual theory and not creationism wearing a funny nose and mustache. It doesn't make those predictions because they all blow massive holes in ID before it ever gets out of the gate.

- An intelligently designed organism should lack vestigal organs. The few minor roles played by the human appendix, wisdom teeth and male nipples could easily be taken over by fully function systems.

- An intelligently designed genome would read in an orderly fashion. It wouldn't look like a genetic sequence that had been fed through a wood chipper and glued back together again. Pseudogenes wouldn't exist.

- An intelligent designer might come up with some of the more horrific parasites that lurk the natural world but it leaves one really questioning His nature. Hard to be All Loving and the Creator of the Ichneumon wasp.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Paleophyte's post
22-09-2016, 09:37 PM
RE: IDiotic
(22-09-2016 08:27 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(22-09-2016 03:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ID doesn't make predictions. All is does, all it has ever done, is be a negative proposition. "If evolutionary theory cannot explain it, then it was designed."


Well, what can design tell us about biology? What can we infer about the designer? What predictions can ID make? The answer is 'nothing' on all accounts.

Actually, ID ought to make a fair number of predictions if it were an actual theory and not creationism wearing a funny nose and mustache. It doesn't make those predictions because they all blow massive holes in ID before it ever gets out of the gate.

- An intelligently designed organism should lack vestigal organs. The few minor roles played by the human appendix, wisdom teeth and male nipples could easily be taken over by fully function systems.

- An intelligently designed genome would read in an orderly fashion. It wouldn't look like a genetic sequence that had been fed through a wood chipper and glued back together again. Pseudogenes wouldn't exist.

- An intelligent designer might come up with some of the more horrific parasites that lurk the natural world but it leaves one really questioning His nature. Hard to be All Loving and the Creator of the Ichneumon wasp.

Conversely, what little can you infer about such a supposed designer? Callousness, capriciousness, an utter disregard for suffering, engineering ineptitude, and a penchant for unneeded redundancy.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
22-09-2016, 09:42 PM
RE: IDiotic
(22-09-2016 09:37 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Conversely, what little can you infer about such a supposed designer? Callousness, capriciousness, an utter disregard for suffering, engineering ineptitude, and a penchant for unneeded redundancy.

Sounds biblically literal.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Paleophyte's post
22-09-2016, 09:55 PM
RE: IDiotic
(22-09-2016 09:42 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(22-09-2016 09:37 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Conversely, what little can you infer about such a supposed designer? Callousness, capriciousness, an utter disregard for suffering, engineering ineptitude, and a penchant for unneeded redundancy.

Sounds biblically literal.

Maybe that's the very point? The reason why ID proponents never take it that far?

Potential Freudian slip? Laughat

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
21-10-2016, 03:50 PM
RE: IDiotic
IDers display an incredible ignorance of the meaning of the word "random" (or, perhaps, it's dishonesty). In the context in which science uses it, "random" means "various". It has nothing to do with chance occurrences. In fact, the random variations which occur in nature are caused mechanistically. Thus the claim that naturalistic science must base itself on chance occurrences is totally ridiculous (whether it is born out of ignorance or dishonesty).

If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities.--Voltaire.

"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." --Thomas Paine.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like 666wannabe's post
21-10-2016, 04:29 PM
RE: IDiotic
ID is a god of the gaps fallacy, but it is primarily a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, they point to natural things and say goddidit.





Something like the flu virus mutating frequently falsifies the idea of a god causing mutations so a virus can thrive and become resistant to vaccinations we create to stop it.

The ID'er is forced to assert that sin and the fall of man is responsible for this "corruption" of god's creation, but then they run into the mountain of scientific evidence that is paleopathology that proves that suffering and disease existed long before humans and it has nothing to do with the Adam and the apple myth.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2016, 04:00 AM
RE: IDiotic
(21-10-2016 03:50 PM)666wannabe Wrote:  IDers display an incredible ignorance of the meaning of the word "random" (or, perhaps, it's dishonesty). In the context in which science uses it, "random" means "various". It has nothing to do with chance occurrences. In fact, the random variations which occur in nature are caused mechanistically. Thus the claim that naturalistic science must base itself on chance occurrences is totally ridiculous (whether it is born out of ignorance or dishonesty).

I have never seen that "definition" of random in the context of science, do you have examples that demonstrates this? I ask because of my interest in "special" uses of words and how these confuse communication and understanding in others.

Otherwise this bit of the Google definition of "random" seems to suit this context nicely:

Quote:made, done, or happening without method or conscious decision.

Thus the whole natural world is "random"!

(Unless instinctive behaviour is considered "method" Smile )

(Have just realised that this also means Jackson Pollock's work is a combination of method and pseudo-randomness! Still think it's Bollocks though.)

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: