Re: Tong admits that ID is not falsifiable
- --- In email@example.com, Michael Tong
> > Michael: Specific complexity is defined by mathematics. If thegenetic, show how the behavior evolved.
> > probability of a biological part appearing through natural random
> > processes is very low, it exhibits SC. Reference where someone
> has shown
> > that the bacterial flagellum could have been produced by natural
> > processes.
> Randy: Here's one of several:
> Michael: Following is Dembski's response to criticism of the bacterial
> flagellum by Kenneth Miller. Miller's arguments are similar to those in
> the above article.
> > Michael: Prove that this basic tenet of science is true. Show that if
> > you can't disprove a theory, then you can't test it.
> > ID is very testable. Whether a biological part exhibits specified
> > complexity is testable; one would simply calculate the probability of
> > being created through random natural processes. Then there are my two
> > hypotheses:
> > 1) All races genetically find Caucasian physical features attractive.
> > 2) Most men genetically find women with high heels, makeup, earrings
> > long, polished fingernails attractive.
> Toro: 1. These are not falsifiable hypotheses.
> 2. They do nothing to disprove evolution or to support ID. Evolution
> could easily explain why decoration can be effective in mating
> displays, it's been shown to even work on birds. Why would your
> designer want human males to want their females decorated?
> Evolution could also explain why some people would find members of the
> most prosperous group of humans attractive, as we're a social species,
> and mating with a successful member of your species would increase the
> liklihood of your offspring being successful. Why would your ID'er
> want the white man to be found most attractive? If he liked the white
> man the best, why didn't he make everyone white?
> 1) Sure they are. Just show that it's not genetic or if it's
Tong, you're losing it. Now, anything that isn't genetic is a sign of
ID? Did the ability to learn behaviors dissappear over the weekend?
> 2) Especially high heels, but possibly earrings, makeup, and long,Toro:
> polished fingernails are a recent phenomenon.
High heels come and go in popularity, as do many fassion trends. The
only constant is that body decoration has been popular for as long as
> It is unnecessary to knowThis is a false comparison, we know that humans can create stone
> the reason behind a design to infer that the cause was an intelligent
> agency. Scientists do not know the reason for the Venus figurines.
figurines, so it's safe to assume that stone figurines are manmade.
The same cannot be said about the creation of life.
> Itis a
> is interesting that in all other animals, the males are the decorated
> sex. Also, women must artificially decorate themselves. Since this
> recent phenomenon, how would evolution explain this?This is not a recent phenominon, in all recorded human history,
there's evidence of body decoration, in both men and women.
> Show that whites are more prosperous and successful than nonwhites andGates and
> that nonwhites know this. Do you like Brad Pitt more than Bill
> Orlando Bloom more than Donald Trump?It's not whites, it's Americans. Many black American entertainers are
popular in other countries as well. You still haven't explained how
American tanning culture fits into your silly theory either.
> > Michael: The point is that SETI does not require that there be aconclude it
> > to the production of the narrowband signal in order to conclude that
> > signal must be from ET.
> Toro: Of course they do! If they recieved a narrow-band signal, you can
> your ass that they'd be doing years of testing before declaring that
> the signal *must* be from ET. They've been wrong before when they
> thought that they knew what was and wasn't a sure sign of ET. If they
> wanted any kind of scientific credibility, they'd be testing the hell
> out of those signals, and until they had actual, real contact, they'd
> never claim to be "sure."
> Michael: As soon as they find a narrowband signal, they would
> was from ET. They have already concluded that random natural processesIf they did that then they'd be laughed at by the entire scientific
> cannot produce a narrowband signal.
community. Where did you hear that they'd do that, or are you just
making it up?
- In a message dated 10/1/05 12:20:39 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
Show that whites are more prosperous and successful than nonwhites and
that nonwhites know this.
ROFLMAO ! ! !
You're kidding, right?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]