On 4/18/2011 2:46 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 18-4-2011 10:21, Invisible wrote:
>>>> You've got to admit, when you read about stuff like people believing
>>>> that ID is real science, it does make you wonder what kind of people
>>>> live there.
>>>
>>> If you take ID to be the idea that some protein(complexe)s can not have
>>> been evolved from earlier proteins, then that is a testable hypothesis.
>>> Stating and researching that idea was real science.
>>
>> So there's a theory, the theory has been repeatedly proven wrong,
>
> no it hasn't. All *cases* that have been put forward that should have
> shown support have in fact turned out to be in support of evolution.
> That does not prove there are none. For that to prove you need to
> examine all proteins that exist anywhere in nature.
>
Actually, this represents two huge problems with their hypothesis 
(please stop using theory, since that implies they already have some 
sort of evidence to imply it is/could be true).

First - Irreducible complexity is a non-starter, since it assumes, 
again, without *any* evidence, literally, that if you find a bridge, 
where one stone being removed makes it fall, there couldn't have been 
any sort of scaffolding to hold it up, later removed, which allowed it 
to be constructed. It had to have been intelligently designed. This is 
idiotic, since even such a bridge, having been so designed, required 
missing steps, which are not obvious from simply saying, "If you remove 
that one stone, it will fall down."

Second - If you want to call something a theory, you need to do research 
to test it. The only people that have *ever* tested it have been 
biologists, and their tests mainly consist of pointing out, usually well 
after the fact has already been established in their own research, that 
pulling some random thing out and saying, "See, irreducible!", doesn't 
work too well when 6 months prior someone had already described why it 
wasn't, but the ID people didn't bother to read all of the papers on the 
subject. The only "research" these clowns have done, to date, involves 
a) writing articles, which often repeat assertions already disproven, 
and sometimes using examples already shown to be invalid, b) scouring 
other people's work, hoping to find something that is irreducible, and 
c) writing more long winded papers, describing their hypothesis, while 
usually glossing over, or rarely, making excuses, as to why they can't 
yet describe what they are really looking for (in the case of ones like 
ontological depth, which they *said* they would have "soon", like 7 
years ago), how to find it, how to test it, how you would show it to be 
incorrect, through testing, or anything else resembling science.

In short, they have a hypothesis, which they want to fit preconceived 
data, but are using philosophy, instead of science, to "prove" it, 
wandering about picking up bits of stuff they think fit their useless 
guess.Its like if someone thought the debate over the existence of 
cyclops in ancient times was real, and they went about declaring that 
they *think* they found a skull (really from an elephant), and some big 
bones (from some dinosaur), which suggest they are right, and cyclops 
actually once existed. Meanwhile, we go on studying elephants, and 
digging up dino skeletons, and wondering what these kooks are babbling 
about, never mind why anyone is taking them seriously.

There is no science done by ID people, there is no research conducted by 
them, unless doing the equivalent of google searches constitutes 
"research", and no "theory", just a desperate guess, they want to be 
true, so that either God had to do it, or, for some of the crazier ones, 
they can take Genesis, and some made up "timeline" for the age of the 
earth seriously.

Post a reply to this message