Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

shadowfyr · 05-18-2005, 11:52 PM

Umm. No, they are not on equal footing. ID has *no* evidence supporting it. It isn't even a theory. A theory has to provide not just some lame assed attempt to explain things, it must present tests that can prove it. It has to say, if ID is really true, then we should see X, Y and Z. ID starts with the premise that something are irreducible, impossible to happen by chance, then sits back and says, "So there!!". Well, problem with that is we know of many irreducible things that happen by random chance and are even testing the basics of 'how' that kind of systems develop with Avida:

Numerous ID and creationism proponents have 'tried' to prove this simulation is flawed or that the people that developed it somehow 'stacked' the system in favor of producing irreducible complexity through mutation. The best they managed is to find a few software bugs. So, their #1 premise is false. There #2 premise, that a thing cannot be science if you do not personally witness it is purely stupid. By that logic forensics isn't a 'science', because unless someone witnesses the event, any evidence you collect or theories you derive from it are pure nonsense. After all, the evidence could have gotten there through miriad unknown means and any theories derived from it is by definition mere speculation. Must make double murders, where there isn't even anyone left to arrest real interesting... For another similar example, there is this piece:

Now, evolution says, "Random mutations give rise to changes, which overtime result in beneficial changes forming new species. For this to be true we need: a) fossil records showing a progression from primitive to complex forms, DNA profiles showing common ancestry and traits that can be tracked back to more primitive forms, evidence of significant mutations that give rise to something radically different (no big animals yet, unless you count some fish species that when cut off from others by natural disasters became hermaphrodites, but there are also 'plenty' of cases of this in micro organisms). In fact, there is also what are called 'ring' species, where a landslide or other change to the environment cut off two groups from each other, but the entire 'range' forms a ring around the mountain. While each subgroup can breed with its nearest neighbor, with as many as a dozen or more sub-species, the two groups that have been completely cut off from each other for thousands of years cannot breed with each other. I.e. A-B-C-D-E-F-G / A, where / is the landslide)" There is evidence of 'all' of these things. Where is IDs 'evidence'? Oh right, I forgot, you have to actually have a 'theory' before you can find evidence of it... After all, its pretty hard to find something if you don't have the slightest clue what you are looking for. ID is nothing more than creationism wearing a mask (the cheap paper bag type you made as a kid in first grade...)

05-18-2005, 11:52 PM	#50
shadowfyr Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 310	Umm. No, they are not on equal footing. ID has no evidence supporting it. It isn't even a theory. A theory has to provide not just some lame assed attempt to explain things, it must present tests that can prove it. It has to say, if ID is really true, then we should see X, Y and Z. ID starts with the premise that something are irreducible, impossible to happen by chance, then sits back and says, "So there!!". Well, problem with that is we know of many irreducible things that happen by random chance and are even testing the basics of 'how' that kind of systems develop with Avida: Numerous ID and creationism proponents have 'tried' to prove this simulation is flawed or that the people that developed it somehow 'stacked' the system in favor of producing irreducible complexity through mutation. The best they managed is to find a few software bugs. So, their #1 premise is false. There #2 premise, that a thing cannot be science if you do not personally witness it is purely stupid. By that logic forensics isn't a 'science', because unless someone witnesses the event, any evidence you collect or theories you derive from it are pure nonsense. After all, the evidence could have gotten there through miriad unknown means and any theories derived from it is by definition mere speculation. Must make double murders, where there isn't even anyone left to arrest real interesting... For another similar example, there is this piece: Now, evolution says, "Random mutations give rise to changes, which overtime result in beneficial changes forming new species. For this to be true we need: a) fossil records showing a progression from primitive to complex forms, DNA profiles showing common ancestry and traits that can be tracked back to more primitive forms, evidence of significant mutations that give rise to something radically different (no big animals yet, unless you count some fish species that when cut off from others by natural disasters became hermaphrodites, but there are also 'plenty' of cases of this in micro organisms). In fact, there is also what are called 'ring' species, where a landslide or other change to the environment cut off two groups from each other, but the entire 'range' forms a ring around the mountain. While each subgroup can breed with its nearest neighbor, with as many as a dozen or more sub-species, the two groups that have been completely cut off from each other for thousands of years cannot breed with each other. I.e. A-B-C-D-E-F-G / A, where / is the landslide)" There is evidence of 'all' of these things. Where is IDs 'evidence'? Oh right, I forgot, you have to actually have a 'theory' before you can find evidence of it... After all, its pretty hard to find something if you don't have the slightest clue what you are looking for. ID is nothing more than creationism wearing a mask (the cheap paper bag type you made as a kid in first grade...)