Monday, July 11, 2011

According to joseph (joe g, ID guy, john paul)

My responses are in bold type.

Joe says:

"ID does not have anything to do with the Bible and all formal definitions of Creationism require the Bible as the sole authority."

That's funny joe-boi, especially since the bible is constantly brought up by IDiots as the authority for their claims.

"Strange how the people who understand Creation and ID the best know there is a difference and only the people with a warped agenda try to conflate the two."

You're one of the dumbest and most dishonest IDiots on planet Earth. And speaking of warped agendas, yours is as warped as it gets.

"What I am saying Nick, is it is just good scientific sense to challenge the concept of universal common ancestry."

"Also seeing that common ancestry is untestable everyone should challenge it."

Wait a second. Don't you say farther down that ID "does not argue against common ancestry"?

"Yes Nick, I looked up “cdesign proponentsists”- it appears in a ROUGH draft of the book “Of Pandas and People”- a ROUGH draft.

Now if one looks at a standard keyboard one would obseve that the “d” key and the “c” key are close enough together that one could hit them both when just trying to hit one of them.

Endless reprition of evotard talking points while ignoring reality doesn’t make those talking points more true."

"Besides that old book has been superseded by “The Design of Life”. And taht says that ID does not argue against common ancestry."

Wow joe, you're really desperate for excuses, aren't you?

"As for the T3SS, well it is irreducibly complex also- meaning your position can’t explain its existence without relying on magical mystery mutations and poofing selection…"

Well joe-boi, first you have to show that it is "irreducibly complex", and that the term "irreducibly complex" actually means something worthwhile, and that evolutionary processes couldn't have produced it, and most of all you have to show that your so-called 'theory' can account for it scientifically, without poofing it by magic.

"Yes Nick, evolution is everywhere in biology.

However ID is NOT anti-evolution and you still cannot produce a testable hypothesis nor positive evidence for the claim that the bacterial flagellum (for example- seeing you co-authored a paper pertaining to them) “evolved” via accumulations of genetic accidents.

Heck you can’t even demonstrate that such a processes can construct new, useful multi-part systems. And seeing living organisms are full of them one would think that would count against your position.

And that is why you and your ilk are running jokes around the world…"

I wouldn't say that evolution is everywhere in biology, at least if you mean the study of biology. Can you scientifically show exactly how your so-called 'theory' accounts for the bacterial flagellum, without poofing and magic? Can you scientifically show exactly how your so-called 'theory', without poofing and magic, accounts for useful or even non-useful multi-part systems in living organisms? Aren't all systems multi-part? Even an atom is multi-part, isn't it? And you should try to be more aware of who the running jokes are, joe. Try looking at a mirror for a start. Then look at your IDiotic comrades.

"Also what us ID folk say is that information is not reducible to matter and energy and neither matter nor energy can create information."

Well then, since you're made of matter and energy, you obviously can't create any information, right joe?


These articles may be somewhat topical: