Saturday, March 12, 2016

Intelligent Design vs Evolution: organising an on-line debate.

In another venue, one Joseph Gallien has challenged me to a debate over "Intelligent Design" and "evolutionism" to use Joe's words. The problem is how to arrange it. I wouldn't trust Joe to stick to any rules we might agree beforehand and I suspect he'll object to my caveats. So, I propose to use this site to post my arguments and copy them to a site of his choosing (He already has a blogger site here or he can easily set up a new one.

62 comments:

Alan Fox said...

Comments are open

Joe G said...

The problem is that you don't have anything, Alan. You cannot tell us how to test the claim that ATP synthase arose via natural selection, drift and/ or neutral construction. So what, exactly, do you have to support evolutionism? Evolutionism is what Dawkins calls blind watchmaker evolution, ie the untestable claim that natural selection, drift and neutral construction produced the diversity of life starting with some simpler replicator.

Another problem is you will equivocate as you already do. But if you are ready to tell us how to test the claims of your position I am more than ready to debate you. However I know that I will be disappointed as no one knows how to test the claims of evolutionism. Not even you- you have even admitted such over on TSZ

Alan Fox said...

Well, the debate, should we get to that, is supposed to be about the respective merits of evolutionary theory and "Intelligent Design" theory.

ghostrider said...

Can someone describe for me the the physical mechanisms by which the Intelligent Design of life was done? Just saying "design" isn't a mechanism any more than saying "magic" is a mechanism.

Joe G said...

ghostrider, ID is not a mechanistic concept. However saying design is a mechanism is as valid as saying natural selection, drift and neutral construction are mechanisms.

OTOH evolutionism is the mechanistic concept. It is all about numerous slight successive steps.

Joe G said...

Yes, Alan, and if there isn't any way to test the claims it makes then obviously it doesn't have any merit, scientifically speaking.

I know how to test the claims of ID. I can post and defend that. OTOH no one knows how to test the claims of evolutionism without first assuming it to be true.

ghostrider said...

I see. ID doesn't have a mechanism. That makes it pretty tough to do any ID research then. How do you test a process that doesn't have anything to test? How does what ID offers differ from witchcraft?

Joe G said...

LoL! Design is a mechanism. Built-in responses to environmental cues is a mechanism. Targeted searches is a mechanism. You don't even ask about the mechanism until you have determined intelligent design exists.

The test ID does is to test if intelligent design is present or not. The science of ID is the detection and study of intelligent design in nature. ID has a methodology whereas your position doesn't have anything. Well the way to falsify it requires us to prove a negative. Talk about the wrong way to approach science! It doesn't make testable claims and to falsify it you have to prove a negative.

ghostrider said...

Sorry Joe G but just saying "design" isn't a mechanism. Built in responses could be a mechanism except it's already been disproven, most recently by the Lenski experiment.

I notice every time someone asks you to describe what ID can do your response is always to start complaining about what evolution can't do. That makes sense when your ID position has no way forward, no way to verify its claims, no way to discover anything about the time frame of the design or the physical methods used to manipulate matter.

For all practical purposes ID = witchcraft which means it's worthless to science.

Joe G said...

Yes, you are sorry and design is a mechanism by definition. Buy a dictionary. And Lenski has proven built-in responses. The only gene capable of producing a gene that transports citrate was duplicated and put under the control of a promoter tat was on in the presence of O2.

And I told you what ID can do. And ID is not anti-evolution. So obviously you have other issues.

And yes we can verify ID's claims. For all practical purposes ID = engineering and your untestable position is worthless to science.

Come one ghostrider, tell us how to test the claim that ATP synthase arose via natural selection, drift and/ or neutral construction or admit that your position is worthless.

Joe G said...

Alan doesn't trust me to stick by any rules and I don't trust Alan to stay on-topic. Heck Alan doesn't even seem to understand that merit and testability go hand-in-hand.

ghostrider said...

Looks like all Joe G has is the usual ID empty rhetoric. "Design" isn't a mechanism any more than "magic" is a mechanism. ID has no explanations for anything. Not the timelines involved, not the physical method of manufacture, not the existing patterns in the genetic and fossil records. Nothing.

Looks like all ID is good for is selling popular press anti-science books to gullible rubes. I bet Joe G has the whole collection.

Joe G said...

Look like all ghostrider is its willful ignorance. Design is a mechanism by definition and it is the mechanism used in manufacturing and engineering. ID is about the design. All other questions come after. You don't need to know the who, when or how in order to determine if something is intelligently designed. You don't even ask those questions until after design has been detected.

Obviously ghostrider is scientifically illiterate.

Joe G said...

Come one ghostrider, tell us how to test the claim that ATP synthase arose via natural selection, drift and/ or neutral construction or admit that your position is worthless.

Thank you for admitting that your position is worthless.

ghostrider said...

Joe G stays true to form. He can't explain anything with his magic, er, ID claims so he resorts to whining about evolution.

Joe G said...

LoL! I am not whining about evolution. ID is not anti-evolution. And I have said what ID claims, many times. Also science mandates tat all design inferences first eliminate necessity and chance explanations. That means ID is mandated to eliminate evolutionism as a plausible explanation for life's diversity.

OTOH all you have to do to refute ID is find support for your position as one of ID's main claims is that you don't have a mechanism that is capable. If you refute that claim ID falls. But you can't and that is what has you so upset.

As I said, you are scientifically illiterate.

ghostrider said...

Joe G, what's the difference between your claimed "design" of biological life and magic?

Both have no identified physical mechanisms.

Bot have no explanatory power.

Both have no predictive power

Both cannot be falsified.

Both have contributed exactly zero to modern scientific understanding.

Both rely on the scientific ignorance of gullible rubes.

Joe G said...

So magic produces cars, computers and jets? Or are you just an upset infant? ID can be falsified and we have said how to do so. I just told you how to falsify it.

And yes saying something was designed offers a lot. For one it eliminates entire classes of possible causes. Then it sets you on a path of investigation. Design means there was a purpose.

BTW evolutionism relies on the scientific ignorance of gullible rubes. Nice own goal.

Joe G said...

OTOH there isn't any difference in your evolution by natural selection, drift and neutral construction and magic. Rubes like you fall all over themselves when asked how to test the claims of your position.

ghostrider said...

Try to read for comprehension Joe. I said the "design" of biological life. Your ID explanation for biological life is no better than claiming magic did it.

Joe G: And yes saying something was designed offers a lot. For one it eliminates entire classes of possible causes. Then it sets you on a path of investigation. Design means there was a purpose

What investigations is ID doing now Joe? What is the purpose of the Ebola virus or Zika virus? Try to answer for once without wining about evolution.

Joe G said...

I know what you said and you are a moron for saying it. My ID explanation for biological life trumps your explanation, hands down.

What investigations is ID doing now Joe?

ID isn't a person so it doesn't investigate. IDists are investigating the design of life and the universe. The viruses of today are the result of many generations of genetic entropy. So right now their purpose is to drive us to investigate a cure, ie fix what Darwinian evolution has wrought.

Try asking relevant questions. First you have to get an education. Also if you could support the claims of your position you wouldn't need to care about ID. So by your belligerent attacks on ID you prove that A) you cannot support your position and B) you are scientifically illiterate.

ghostrider said...

The viruses of today are the result of many generations of genetic entropy.

Above you said things evolve due to built-in responses to environmental clues. Now you claim it's genetic entropy. That's what passes for "science" among the IDers - make up whatever horsecrap sounds good at the time, never mind about consistency or evidence.

ID has no explanations, no identified mechanisms, does no experimentation, does no investigations. ID claims deadly viruses have a purpose for the Designer but can't say what that purpose is.

Once again Joe can't answer a single question about ID but keeps whining about evolution as a distraction. You have no scientific training at all, do you Joe?

Joe G said...

Above you said things evolve due to built-in responses to environmental clues. Now you claim it's genetic entropy.

They are not mutually exclusive. Obviously you have a very limited intellect.

ID has no explanations,

They are better than your explanations

no identified mechanisms

At least 3 have been identified, along with design being a mechanism.

does no experimentation

And yet many experiments have proven IC to be real

ID claims deadly viruses have a purpose

You are obviously an imbecile as ID doesn't say that.

Once again Joe can't answer a single question about ID

I have answered more questions about ID than you have about your position.

Once again we see that ghostrider is nothing but a scientifically illiterate ass, and proud of it.

ghostrider said...

Poor Joe. He can't defend his ID claims so he resorts to personal attacks and insults. ID has explanations, no identified mechanisms, no timelines, does no experimentation, does no investigations, can identify none of its claimed purpose for the supposed designs. Any more ID highlights you want to brag about Joe?

Joe G said...

Yes, ghostrider, you are a willfully ignorant chump. I don't know why you are so proud of it, though.

ghostrider said...

Are you a YEC Joe? When did the mysterious "Designer" do his manufacturing?

Joe G said...

Are you retarded, ghostrider? Your posts say that you are.

The when is not part of ID. ID is about the detection and study of design in nature. The other questions come after. And that is why ID is not a scientific dead-end as the design inference comes with those other questions.

But you are too stupid to understand any of that. Your job is just to be a belligerent ass. Nice job

ghostrider said...

OK Joe, for the sake of argument let's say "design" has been detected in nature. You have a world class ID lab in your basement and unlimited funds. Where would you start? What research ideas do you pursue?

Joe G said...

First you need to get an education and then demonstrate an understanding of science. So come back in several years, when you get out of third grade.

ghostrider said...

Even when Joe is offered the chance he still can't provide any useful avenue for ID to research. ID is just as valuable to science as magic.

Joe G said...

LoL! I have already answered your question many times for more worthy opponents.

OK ghostrider, or the sake of argument let's say natural selection, drift and neutral construction has been detected in nature. You have a world class evolutionism lab in your basement and unlimited funds. Where would you start? What research ideas do you pursue?

What would you do to show that natural selection, drift and/ or neutral construction can produce ATP synthase?

Joe G said...

moron:
Even when Joe is offered the chance he still can't provide any useful avenue for ID to research.

ID research is about the detection and study of design in nature. Everything else is after that and not part of ID research.

I have only told you that several times in this thread alone.

ghostrider said...

Joe Joe Joe. You're supposed to be explaining and defending ID claims. Yet all you can do is attack evolution. Why are you so afraid to tell us about ID? Nothing to say?

BTW Joe you can see tons of evolution research ideas in the scientific literature. There are hundreds of papers published every week in Nature, Science,, Cell, Genetics, etc. Where's that ID research?

ID research is about the detection and study of design in nature

You told us that ID had already detected design in nature. Now you say it hasn't. That's what happens when you make up this crap as you go.

Are you a YEC? You're ignorant enough to be one.

Joe G said...

LoL! I can and have defended ID claims. I don't need to do it for every evoTARD that comes along. And ID is not anti-evolution making your claim of evolution research just one equivocal bluff. There isn't any research tat supports unguided evolution, ie natural selection, drift and neutral construction actually building complex adaptations.

You told us that ID had already detected design in nature.

We have and we are not finished. Not everything is designed. Are you retarded?

Now you say it hasn't.

So you are retarded. We aren't finished detecting and studying the design, dipshit.

Ignorant and retarded. That doesn't bode well for you, ghostrider

Joe G said...

ghostrider wants to know what research would be conducted given ID being true:

Well, duh, we would go about trying to answer all of those new questions- the who, how, when, where, why. How was not obvious?

Also ID says that living organisms are more than chemistry and physics. There would be many labs dedicated to finding out what else there is to life. As for ETs "The Privileged Planet" tells us exactly what to look for to find a habitable planet capable of sustaining technological civilizations.

ghostrider said...

Now you've changed again and say you have detected design. So why isn't ID doing any of that research you said should happen after design is detected? It's pretty funny how you keep lying about ID's accomplishments and looking like a fool with every post.

You are a YEC aren't you?

Alan Fox said...

Hi ghostrider,

I hope you are enjoying your chat with Joe.

Joe G said...

Now you've changed again and say you have detected design.

You only think I have changed my mind because you are an ignorant ass.

So why isn't ID doing any of that research you said should happen after design is detected?

Already answered, moron.

It's pretty funny watching you lie and act like the little ignorant coward that you are.

ghostrider said...

Potty mouthed Joe just can't help himself

Hey Joe, tell us more about how you know the Ebola and Zika viruses weren't designed but evolved through genetic entropy. What did the originals look like? Were the originals designed?

Let's see some evidence for your remarkable claims.

ghostrider said...

I hope you are enjoying your chat with Joe.

I am. :) I'm going to get Joe to teach me everything he knows about ID. It shouldn't take very long.

Joe G said...

LoL! Evolutionists have all of the resources but no answers. No one knows how natural selection, drift and neutral construction could have produced ATP synthase. Evos are clueless about it. They have no idea where to start to support the claims of their position. If evos had something then ID would be a non-starter yet ID is here to stay because of the failure of evos to support their claims.

That is why debating Alan on the merits of evolutionism vs ID will be a easy-peasy. All he can do is bluff and deny. Too bad this isn't for money...

Joe G said...

ghostdork wanted to know about research after ID was a given. I told it what that would be and it throws a hissy-fit like the infant it is.


Life is good...

ghostrider said...

Joe, you forgot to tell us about the history of the Ebola and Zika viruses. How you know they weren't designed but evolved through genetic entropy.

You weren't just making up that ID claim, were you? You seem to make up a lot of your ID "facts".

ghostrider said...

Joe G: We have and we are not finished.

Joe, when specifically did an ID researched detect "design" in biological life? Why wasn't there an announcement or press release? In what scientific journal was the original work published?

Were you lying about ID's accomplishments again? Tsk tsk.

Joe G said...

It's has been going on for decades. Why do you think that your ignorance means something?

As for scientific journals, LoL! There isn't anything in them that supports evolutionism. Nice own goal, moron.

Good luck with your willful ignorance.

Joe G said...

I'm going to get Joe to teach me everything he knows about ID

You are too stupid to learn.

ghostrider said...

It's has been going on for decades.

Then why is this magnificent ID discovery not in any scientific journals?

Why are you too afraid to explain how you know Ebola and Zika weren't designed but evolved by genetic entropy? You made the claim.

Looks like you were lying again. What a surprise.

Joe G said...

LoL! There aren't any evoTARD discoveries. No one knows how to test the claims of evolutionism. What a surprise. You should focus on your lame-ass position.

Why are you too afraid to explain how you know Ebola and Zika weren't designed but evolved by genetic entropy?

Genetic entropy is an observation. Again your ignorance, while amusing, is neither an argument nor a refutation

ghostrider said...

Oh dear, looks like Joe was caught in another lie, claiming he had data which showed Ebola and Zika weren't designed but evolved by genetic entropy.

I know, catching Joe G in a lie isn't exactly news. Still it's entertaining every time it happens.

Joe G said...

Oh dear, looks like Joe was caught in another lie, claiming he had data which showed Ebola and Zika weren't designed but evolved by genetic entropy.

I never made such a claim. You are lying. And your position can't explain the existence of any virus, so that would be a problem for you to ignore.

ghostrider said...

Add another lie to Joe's list. You said viruses are the result of evolution and genetic entropy, remember?

Joe G: "The viruses of today are the result of many generations of genetic entropy. So right now their purpose is to drive us to investigate a cure, ie fix what Darwinian evolution has wrought."

How did you determine viruses weren't designed Joe?

I know you can't answer, I just want to hear your next funny lie.

Joe G said...

Thank you for proving my point as I never said I " had data which showed Ebola and Zika weren't designed but evolved by genetic entropy."

But yes we know genetic entropy exists. It has been observed.

How did you determine viruses weren't designed Joe?

I never said that, either. The viruses of today are obviously the result of many generations of change. That is basic biology. It seems that your ignorance is getting in your way, again.

Pathetic

ghostrider said...

LOL! Look at Joe squirm!

But yes we know genetic entropy exists. It has been observed.

Where's your data showing Ebola and Zika evolved by genetic entropy? What did they evolve from Joe? The "perfect" non-harmful viruses on Noah's Ark?

Tell us a few more good lies Joe, you're hilarious!

Joe G said...

As if your ignorance means that I am squirming. Grow up.

Where's your data showing Ebola and Zika evolved by genetic entropy?

Genetic entropy is an observation of all organisms. It also applies to viruses. Again your ignorance is neither and argument nor a refutation.

And it also applies to us. We are more susceptible to diseases due to genetic entropy. But you are too ignorant to understand that.

ghostrider said...

Joe runs from the questions again. Is there ever a time when you're not a lying coward?

Where's your data showing Ebola and Zika evolved by genetic entropy? What did they evolve from Joe? The "perfect" non-harmful viruses on Noah's Ark?

Sanford's silly "genetic entropy" YEC claim says we're degrading from the perfect "kinds" created in the Garden of Eden. Are you a YEC Joe?

William Spearshake said...

Joe: "So magic produces cars, computers and jets?"

Show me a single car, computer or jet that design has built.

"And yes saying something was designed offers a lot. For one it eliminates entire classes of possible causes. Then it sets you on a path of investigation. Design means there was a purpose."

Agreed. So when is ID going to start along all of these paths of investigation? Or even start investigating?

"BTW ID creationism relies on the scientific ignorance of gullible rubes."

There, I corrected your typographical error. No need to thank me. We all make mistakes like that.

Alan Fox said...

Hi William

Welcome to the party!

Rich Hughes said...

Hillarious lack of detail from the ID side. But to be fair Joe doesn't understand CSI nor is he an ID leader, so perhaps a little unfair. I'd suggest corresponding narratives with similar details.

Alan Fox said...

I'd suggest corresponding narratives with similar details.

That'll keep things brief!

ghostrider said...

Oops! Joe G just got himself perma-banned at UD! How big a jerk does an ID pusher have to be to get himself banned at the most ID friendly spot on the planet?

Alan Fox said...

Ninja'd by ghostrider. I was just coming to offer my condolences to Joe. Outrageous of Barry to ban Joe for insulting Christians. I'm shocked, shocked I say.

ghostrider said...

Looks like Joe isn't coming back. Pity.