Intelligent Design Media

Fun from Facebook: Fake ID pages

Spread the love

For months, some ID-friendly Facebookers have been trying to draw my attention to fake-ID Facebook pages. But Facebook is one of those systems I use without fully understanding it, so resisted getting involved.

Well, yesterday, I got clear enough information to have a look:

… you are still listed as a member on the fraudulent group. Could you please post a Warning message to that wall stating “Official Page here is a FAKE ID group run by an atheist with a FAKE account. Please do not support his fraud”.

Possibly, even a short write-up about the profile in this OP, as we have been trying to get this fraud shut down for a year?

Okay. So far as I can see, these are legitimate ID-oriented Facebook pages:

The Official ID Facebook Page (over 7000 members).

I don’t know what makes that page official. The ID community has no governing body. But it is probably representative of a large section of lay interest.

I also commend to your interest (775 members) Natural Genetic Engineering, which is named in honour of well-known molecular biologist and Darwin critic James Shapiro.

And Intelligent Design – Consistent with the program Discovery Institute (790 members) I don’t think the Discovery Institute sponsors the page; more likely, the members feel they are more in line with its goals.

Readers may wish to suggest other such pages; these are only the ones I have been asked or permitted to post links to, to spur discussions.

Okay, now about fake pages, here is one: It has 2780 members, and the artwork looks like it could be from an official page. Indeed, as the founder of the “official” ID page put it, “That’s the other thing is that since they stole our name, and copy our cover photos, it causes some members to do a double take not sure just exactly which board they’re on.”

When I posted links yesterday from Uncommon Descent to the Official ID Facebook Page, those links were appearing a sidebar at the fake page  (that, of course, may not continue hereafter). So it might at times look very much like the actual page.

It turned out I was even a member (no longer). How did that happen? I have been informed,

The purpose of his FAKE Behe and Meyer accounts is to collect creationist friends that he dumps into his fake group without permission (that’s how you ended up there) and the purpose of his FAKE group is to mock ID while booting everyone who defends ID, …

I have since left the group I never intentionally joined.

You wouldn’t even really notice what the page was unless you happened to read the intro copy written by Christopher Hartsil:

Irreducible complexity remains fallacious on a number of levels. Out of the gate it is a gap argument as not knowing how X developed is not evidence *for* anything. Secondly are the falsification criteria. They each are separate fallacies themselves.

So it obviously isn’t an ID page and one wonders how many of those some thousands of supposed members have any idea they have been enrolled.

There was a fake Mike Behe page quite recently, but it has been removed, I am told it will likely be replaced by another. Other ID theorists also have/have had/will have fake pages dedicated to detracting them as well. The Genesis Key was offered as another example, apparently from the same shop.

Some ID opponents defend the practice of fake pages. For example,

I would support ID if its claims were based on actual science. I am here because it is clearly not science, and I cannot allow ID to use MY cloak to fool its victims.

So instead of making clear that he does not support ID, he belongs to a fake ID page…

Two takehome points: People would not engage in these antics if they thought they could compete in an open forum.

Second, if they get a tighter hold on the whip hand, expect more than fake Facebook pages from them.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

135 Replies to “Fun from Facebook: Fake ID pages

  1. 1
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Facebook is one of those systems I use without fully understanding it, so resisted getting involved.

    I don’t understand it or use it.

    The Official ID Facebook Page (over 7000 members). I don’t know what makes that page official.

    The whole environment of Facebook strikes me as fake. The Official ID Facebook Page itself is fake because there’s nothing official about it. I wouldn’t call 7000 members a very big community either.

    I liked how John C. Dvorak from PC Magazine once complained that we’ve got the freedom to create whatever we want on the internet and yet people put themselves in Facebook. It’s like the old America On Line. Ok, teenagers need a place to congregate so I can see that.

    I just hope these ID advocates offer themselves in the real world of the web and don’t limit themselves to Facebook.

    I can’t believe I’m finally sounding like a grouchy old man. I’ve been waiting all my life for this. 🙂

  2. 2
    Learned Hand says:

    They collect creationist friends in order to add them to a group where they’ll be banned for supporting ID?

  3. 3
    tjguy says:

    Atheists can justify anything they want to – even deception which points out the problem of amoralistic worldviews.

    Morals cannot be derived from atheism or evolutionary worldviews. You just can’t get “ought” from “is”.

    All you have are people with differing ideas about morality. Morality becomes a personal thing that can be changed without breaking any code or feeling guilty because one knows – at least thinks he knows – that all morality is relative and man made so not binding in the least.

  4. 4
    Silver Asiatic says:

    They collect creationist friends in order to add them to a group where they’ll be banned for supporting ID?

    Atheist logic, I guess.

    But anyway. There’s a distinction between readers and posters.
    It’s meant to torment the people who read the abuse. But if you speak up you get banned (or I’d guess just lose posting privileges).

  5. 5
    OldArmy94 says:

    I would support ID if its claims were based on actual science. I am here because it is clearly not science, and I cannot allow ID to use MY cloak to fool its victims.

    This quote, by one of the fakers above, really summarizes the issue well. Note how they claim ownership of something that isn’t subject to possession. Science is a process, not a verdict.

  6. 6
    Silver Asiatic says:

    OldArmy94 @5

    Interesting and true. So many people claim to own science. Remarkably, they can’t even point to an “official” theory of evolution, for example. Who owns that? Dawkins? I read where evolutionists are concerned because many science educators in schools want ID introduced to students.

    But science educators are not an official voice of science?

    There’s some kind of invisible club you have to join to be a “real scientist”. They try to protect the club with peer review and academic standing, but it’s a game.

  7. 7
    Paleysghost says:

    Well, the main goal is to inform people and to hopefully get people to flag these FAKE accounts and to not support fraud.

    I was the admin on the “original” Pro-ID Official Page when this crumb was booted for tolling and then turned around and stole our groups name and cover art with the purpose of committing fraud. Christopher Hartisl is not a real individual, but has up to 65 FAKE names and accounts and promtes religious hatred everywhere he goes (on top of misrepresentation and fraud).

    Please, report this account as a FAKE to facebook.
    https://www.facebook.com/PhysicsPanda?fref=nf

  8. 8
    Paleysghost says:

    Also, would like to pint out that “Christopher” (although nobody can be certain who he really is)has always been closely associated with real account “Andrew Lowe” to the point that it seems almost obvious that it either is Lowe or (at the very least) his closest real life butt buddy.

    http://theatheistkilla.blogspo.....-runs.html

  9. 9
    CHartsil says:

    Actually I created my ID group because I was censored from the other for correcting Dennis Jones on ignorance of genetics and co-optation. I continually pointed out that systems which can only be considered IC can and do evolve and even cited several examples. His response was blocking me.

    Get your story straight.

  10. 10
    CHartsil says:

    Here’s a challenge; Instead of droning about ‘fraudulent’ groups (I wasn’t aware that only proponents of an idea could make pages about it) try naming one run by actual creationists that doesn’t engage in censorship.

  11. 11
    Paleysghost says:

    No, Chartsil. You were there using the fake name “Ethan Metzger” (10 fake names ago) and was booted for spamming and trolling and in retaliation stole the group name and cover art.

    Get your story straight. 🙂

  12. 12
    Paleysghost says:

    Why do you always have 20-30 premade accounts and pages ready to go out the shoot? Why do you troll pretending to be an atheist and a creationist? Why do make fake Behe and Meyer profiles to collect friends that were added to your fake groups?

    https://www.facebook.com/search/more/?q=Christopher%20Hartsil&sid=0.1717457664038039

  13. 13
    Paleysghost says:

    What’s a matter? You can’t sensor comments here or hide the fact that you make fake profiles and pages on a daily basis that become copy / cat groups. You can’t win here, so why not just crawl back into your hole and pretend to be “winning” something. 🙂

    http://theatheistkilla.blogspo.....-runs.html

    https://www.facebook.com/search/more/?q=Christopher%20Hartsil&sid=0.1717457664038039

  14. 14
    CHartsil says:

    Actually I was using my real name to start with and a band of creationists continually flagged them.

    “Why do you always have 20-30 premade accounts and pages ready to go out the shoot?”

    I made most of those to accept Chad ‘The Atheist Killa’ Elliott’s challenge to which he promptly and continually blocked me, refusing to debate.

    There presumably being no censorship here is exactly why I would win. Creationists are the only ones that have to engage in censorship of criticism.

    As far as “Christopher Hartsil runs” I’d say you might want to fact check but why would you start now?

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/CreationstsAreScaredOfChristopherHartsil/permalink/540514109418456/

  15. 15
    Paleysghost says:

    Why do you always have 20-30 premade accounts and pages ready to go out the shoot? Why do you troll pretending to be an atheist and a creationist? Why do make fake Behe and Meyer profiles to collect friends that were added to your fake groups?

    https://www.facebook.com/search/more/?q=Christopher%20Hartsil&sid=0.1717457664038039

  16. 16
    CHartsil says:

    “Why do you always have 20-30 premade accounts and pages ready to go out the shoot?”

    Censorship, as on here. If I had never been censored from a creationist page, I only ever would have needed one.

    “Why do you troll pretending to be an atheist and a creationist? Why do make fake Behe and Meyer profiles to collect friends that were added to your fake groups?”

    It’s the only way to effectively expose some of these people to actual evidence. I admit it’s not the most honest method but if they took issue with being lied to, they wouldn’t be creationists to start with.

  17. 17
    Paleysghost says:

    Why are you lying? Why was your name “Ethan Metzger” 10 fake names ago, while “Christopher Hartsil” has been up a year without being flagged or shut down.

    Why are you (yes, Andrew) the only member on a group you started that lies and says it supports Christianity?

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/TheGenesisKey/?pnref=lhc

  18. 18
    CHartsil says:

    Instead of continually bombarding me with accusations and questions I’ve already answered why not try to present a creationist run page or group that does not actively engage in censorship of criticism? I’ll go there and you can keep track of every single thing I post so there can be no mistaking it for ‘trolling’ as creationists like to use as rationale but only valid criticism.

  19. 19
    Paleysghost says:

    The pile of lies is sky high, buddy and you can’t delete and censor posts here like you do on your FAKE ID group:

    Why are you (yes, Andrew) the only member on a group you started that lies and says it supports Christianity?

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/TheGenesisKey/?pnref=lhc

  20. 20
    News says:

    CHartsil is no longer with us, under that name. He could always try starting a fake UD page if he likes. Don’t know the legalities; could be issues.

  21. 21

    CHartsil. Is this “creationist?”

    http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/

    Why or why not?

  22. 22
    CHartsil says:

    Instead of continually bombarding me with accusations and questions I’ve already answered why not try to present a creationist run page or group that does not actively engage in censorship of criticism?

  23. 23
    CHartsil says:

    Gary, yes. ID is a wedge strategy to make creationism appear scientific. It’s certainly not a theory as a theory is required to explain a natural phenomenon through testable mechanisms and be able to be used to produce falsifiable predictions. ID does no such thing.

  24. 24

    Oh drats! Bad timing on my question. Not that I needed another debate.

  25. 25
    CHartsil says:

    Gary, since they feel an obvious need to censor here feel free to join my group for debate.

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IntelligentDesignOfficialPage/

  26. 26

    CHartsil, you’re still here!

    I only want your opinion of this Theory of Intelligent Design, not anything else:

    https://sites.google.com/site/theoryofid/home/TheoryOfIntelligentDesign.pdf

  27. 27
    CHartsil says:

    ID isn’t a theory, it explains nothing.

  28. 28
    Paleysghost says:

    So, no coherent explanation as to why you started a “Pro-Christian” group aimed at proving the Bible is true, huh?

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/TheGenesisKey/?pnref=lhc

  29. 29
    Paleysghost says:

    Christopher Hartsil said “No, I’m an atheist. This is an atheist run page as opposed to /IDOfficialpage due to censorship by creationists there.”

    His new group says: “Welcome to the Genesis Key, a Christian apologetics website where you can find arguments defending the Christian faith against whatever Satan decides to throw our way. It’s a great time to be a Christian. With the establishment of many academic fields, we have access to more evidence than ever before that the Bible is true. This website, and related content, was created with the intent to provide believers, both young and old, with this evidence, aswell as information on Christianity and on the different religions that plague our planet. Our goal is to strengthen the faith of Christians and bring many more people to saving faith in Jesus Christ. May God bless everyone who visits this site.”

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/TheGenesisKey/?pnref=lhc

  30. 30
    Paleysghost says:

    Why are you a consistent time wasting lying scumbag?

  31. 31

    CHartsil:

    ID isn’t a theory, it explains nothing.

    Thank you CHartsil. That is the only thing I needed to know from you, to know that you are not behaving in the best interests of science. I’m best off to remain at UD.

  32. 32
    CHartsil says:

    “His new group says: “Welcome to the Genesis Key”

    They also claimed in the original GK group to be interested in science. They were being dishonest about that.

    Why is it creationists only have a problem being lied to by skeptics? Especially when being lied to by other creationists (and being a creationist yourself) is what leads to such actions.

  33. 33
    CHartsil says:

    “That is the only thing I needed to know from you, to know that you are not behaving in the best interests of science”

    Knowing that ID isn’t science serves science pretty well

  34. 34
    Paleysghost says:

    Are you too dumb to know that you’ve been exposed like a Nude model and fed to the fish?

    You look silly at this point and serve to show a wider reader base of 50,000 what you and your facebook agenda is all about.

    Thanks.

  35. 35
    CHartsil says:

    You mean like how I demonstrated that you can’t give one example of a creationist run facebook page that doesn’t engage in censorship of criticism?

    I guess creationists are whining about my methods because they don’t want any competition in dishonesty.

  36. 36
    Paleysghost says:

    So, let’s do a recap…

    The guy ADMITS to making FAKE Behe and Meyer accounts and ADMITS to being an atheist who starts fraudulent Christian groups and ADMITS to having a large amount of FAKE profiles already pre-made and ready to go and then claims: “He’s the victim”.

    Any questions?

  37. 37
    CHartsil says:

    So how’s that finding a creationist page that doesn’t censor criticism coming?

  38. 38
    Paleysghost says:

    GuyCaughtLyingAboutFraudSaysWhat?

  39. 39
    Paleysghost says:

    So, let’s do a recap…

    The guy ADMITS to 50,000 readers that he is making FAKE Behe and Meyer accounts and ADMITS to being an atheist who starts fraudulent Christian groups and ADMITS to having a large amount of FAKE profiles already pre-made and ready to go and then claims: “He’s the victim”.

    Any questions?

  40. 40
    Paleysghost says:

    No further questions, Andrew Lowe. 🙂

  41. 41
    CHartsil says:

    So how’s that finding a creationist page that doesn’t censor criticism coming?

  42. 42
    Paleysghost says:

    So hows that “being exposed naked in front of more people than you ever met on facebook” going? It’ll probably boost your FAKE group membership at least 50 people who you all have to censor and boot.

  43. 43
    Paleysghost says:

    Oops, no option of going back and deleting posts where you already admitted to everything you’ve been accused of.

    Screenshot moment.

  44. 44
    CHartsil says:

    So how’s that finding a creationist page that doesn’t censor criticism coming?

  45. 45
    Paleysghost says:

    Oh, did you just realize that you publicly admitted to all crimes against you for future reference and that you have no power here to censor and delete, Andrew Lowe?

    I did.

  46. 46
    Paleysghost says:

    It also happens to be against facebook policy to run even a single FAKE profile, let alone 65. 😉

  47. 47
    Paleysghost says:

    While the religiously motivated Anti-ID folk are busy making funny cartoons with insults — the real world is passing them by:

    “Seeking God in Science is a refreshing and fair-minded exploration of intelligent design arguments. Unlike the many ideologically-driven detractors of intelligent design, Monton refuses to set up a straw man, poison the well, or dismiss it as unscientific. Bradley Monton writes as “a friendly atheist” — one who seriously and honestly considers claims that challenge atheism. As such, this book is a welcome breakthrough.”

    http://spot.colorado.edu/~mont.....on/ID.html

  48. 48
    CHartsil says:

    So how’s that finding a creationist page that doesn’t censor criticism coming?

    “While the religiously motivated Anti-ID folk are busy making funny cartoons with insults — the real world is passing them by:”

    I really hope you’re kidding. ID has been exposed as nothing but repackaged creationism and is dead in the water. Ever notice a distinct lack of criticism on creationist forums? Because even they themselves recognize it can’t stand up to scrutiny. They can’t have their sheep (you) thinking for themselves

  49. 49
    Paleysghost says:

    The “real” atheist with a PhD who isn’t afraid to use his identity disagrees with you and nobody cares what a coward fraud and proven liar has to say.

    You’ve been exposed and are yesterdays news. You’ll honestly have to start a new profile for your next 5 minutes of fame.

    http://spot.colorado.edu/~mont.....on/ID.html

  50. 50
    Paleysghost says:

    So, let’s do a recap…

    The guy ADMITS to 50,000 readers that he is making FAKE Behe and Meyer accounts and ADMITS to being an atheist who starts fraudulent Christian groups and ADMITS to having a large amount of FAKE profiles already pre-made and ready to go and then claims: “He’s the victim”.

    End thread/

  51. 51
    Joe says:

    ID has been exposed as nothing but repackaged creationism

    Only by people who are willfully ignorant.

  52. 52
    kairosfocus says:

    CHartsil, I note that your reconstruction of the roots of modern design thought is based on well-poisoning falsehoods often spread by certain agit-prop groups such as NCSE. I suggest strongly to you that you scroll up, click the Resources Tab, and ponder carefully the correctives you will find there. KF

  53. 53
    Silver Asiatic says:

    What do you say to someone who spends time reading and arguing on a topic that is idiotic and has no value at all and no power to convince anyone?

    Or better yet, what can you conclude about that person?

  54. 54
    Paleysghost says:

    The “ID is creationism in a lab coat” mentality demonstrates exactly what kind of mental midgets we are dealing with here. The Big Bang theory was formulated and presented by a Belgium “PRIEST” and when his lab coat was on he was a “Physicist” and not a “Creationist”.

    Internet Darwinists with this childish position represent a small group of mental midgets who are primarily ignored by 99% of the real world scientists.

    Sorry 🙁

  55. 55
    Paleysghost says:

    Francis Collins (for example) is a heavy hitter with a tremendous amount of respect in the scientific community, while PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins are preachers who even get berrated by their own flock.

    Welcome to reality.

  56. 56
    CHartsil says:

    “You’ll honestly have to start a new profile for your next 5 minutes of fame.”

    So basically you’re saying that you can’t actually manage to effectively debate with someone who knows ID is garbage.

    “Only by people who are willfully ignorant.”

    No, to those who actually understand science and its purview. I bet I can ask for a testable mechanism of ID and all I’ll get is blocked.

    “ignored by 99% of the real world scientists.”

    That would be creationists.

  57. 57
    CHartsil says:

    Since there’s nothing but censorship here as well, feel free to debate me at https://www.facebook.com/groups/IntelligentDesignOfficialPage/

    I would ask that you think about what it says of a position that even its proponents recognize it can’t stand up to so much as scrutiny from some guy on the internet.

  58. 58
    Paleysghost says:

    Why would any legitimate person come to support your bogus page after you admitted several times in this thread alone that you make fraudulent Behe and Meyer accounts and that you are an atheist who starts fraudulent Christian groups and ADMIT to having a large amount of FAKE profiles already pre-made to troll because “You are a victim”.

  59. 59
    Paleysghost says:

    Here are legitimate ID groups who all currently have opposition criticizing the articles without being getting booted or censored, thus proving this joker to be a liar once again:

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDOfficialPage/

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IntelligentDesignTheory/

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDIDI777ID/

  60. 60
    CHartsil says:

    Why would anyone still be an ID proponent when you couldn’t name a single creationist page that doesn’t censor criticism? Oh and as far as ‘fake accounts’ three out of the four admin accounts on the other ID page are Dennis Jones.

  61. 61
  62. 62
    CHartsil says:

    By that you mean groups that censor.

  63. 63
    Paleysghost says:

    The admins are “Dennis Jones, Denyse O’leary, and Mitchell Thomas Rowe”, who are all real people with real accounts, thus proving you a liar once again.

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDOfficialPage/

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IntelligentDesignTheory/

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDIDI777ID/

  64. 64
    Paleysghost says:

    In fact, after Lincoln Phipps was booted it was Denyse O’leary who invited him back stating “Opposition is good, as it shows exactly what these people have in their hand”.

    You are a proven fraud and liar 10 fold.

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDOfficialPage/

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IntelligentDesignTheory/

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDIDI777ID/

  65. 65
    Paleysghost says:

    Keep talking, Andrew Lowe (or whoever), as I’ve really enjoyed this opportunity to have you PROVE that you are a liar and a fraud to a wide reader membership.

    Thanks for your help in this matter.

  66. 66
    CHartsil says:

    You forgot Honza Petrasek.

    Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you and your inability to provide a creationist run group that doesn’t censor.

  67. 67
    Paleysghost says:

    Thanks to you, this article which came and went has been boosted 10 fold in it’s followers.

    Here are three legitimate groups that only boot trolls, spammers, and fake accounts:

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDOfficialPage/

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IntelligentDesignTheory/

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDIDI777ID/

  68. 68
  69. 69
    Paleysghost says:

    Did you seriously just sign in with your 5th account to make a bigger fool out yourself? You don’t actually have a job or purpose in life, huh?

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDOfficialPage/

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IntelligentDesignTheory/

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDIDI777ID/

  70. 70
    Paleysghost says:

    From anonymous- “The guy is a well-known psychopath and I promise that he’ll be logging in with 12 more accounts day and night”.

    Another ID prediction come true.

  71. 71
    Phinehas says:

    Paleysghost:

    I’d advise you to shake the dust from your boots. Setting out to prove someone else is a liar and a fraud is to give entirely too much focus and energy to liars and frauds. If you keep going down the same route, you may end up becoming indistinguishable. You are already inviting speculation as to whether you might simply be a sock-puppet to act as foil in helping a fraud stir up his own tempest in a teapot.

  72. 72
    Paleysghost says:

    Correct, I did forget Honza Petrasek.

    Honza Petrasek is a Professional engineer and one of the founding “real” members of the legit “Official Page” who no longer participates on facebook.

    Anything else you’d like to say?

  73. 73
    Paleysghost says:

    Phinehas said “Setting out to prove…”

    Mission accomplished.
    Read the thread. 🙂

  74. 74
    Paleysghost says:

    I’d suggest to you Phinehas to spend more energy reporting proven frauds to the proper authorities and not concern yourself with being a peacemaker worried about stirring up a tempest.

    The man has been a pain in the ass to a lot of people for over a year and it’s because of “turning the other cheek” and ignoring it that he’s been given a gold star and free pass.

  75. 75
    CHartsil says:

    “You don’t actually have a job or purpose in life, huh?”

    Coming from the guy compulsively commenting to try to get the last word.

    What’s been proven here is that you yourself recognize creationists cannot stand up to debate.

  76. 76
    Paleysghost says:

    I’m actually a female, thus again proving your complete incompetence. You also had the last word 5 accounts ago, but clearly felt as if you had more to say on the topic of Lies and Fraud.

  77. 77
    Paleysghost says:

    Did you seriously just sign in with your 6th account to make a bigger fool out yourself? You don’t actually have a job or purpose in life, huh?

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDOfficialPage/

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IntelligentDesignTheory/

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDIDI777ID/

  78. 78
    Paleysghost says:

    77 comments proving with your own testimony and actions that you are a joke and a pathetic liar with you boosting UD site activity with every post.

    Let’s keep going. 🙂

  79. 79
    CHartsil says:

    Got that creationist run page that doesn’t censor criticism yet?

    I’d bet not

  80. 80
    Paleysghost says:

    Waiting for your next response.
    …because we all know you will be responding.

    So, let’s do a recap…

    The guy ADMITS to 50,000 readers that he is making FAKE Behe and Meyer accounts and ADMITS to being an atheist who starts fraudulent Christian groups and ADMITS to having a large amount of FAKE profiles already pre-made and ready to go and then claims: “He’s the victim”.

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDOfficialPage/

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IntelligentDesignTheory/

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDIDI777ID/

  81. 81
    Paleysghost says:

    We know that you can’t help responding here (where we work and write articles on an hourly basis), can you? After all, That’s what a jobless psychopath does. 🙂

  82. 82
    CHartsil says:

    Got that creationist run page that doesn’t censor criticism yet?

    I’d bet not.

    http://twitter.com/UncommonDescent
    http://www.facebook.com/UncommonDescent
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/UncommonDescent

  83. 83
    Paleysghost says:

    Lincoln Phipps, Chris Koontz, Dave Keihl, Keith Fosberg and a bunch more are on the legitimate page criticizing ID Theory at this very moment. You were booted because you are a pathetic troll and an annoying joke, which is the same reason why you have been booted from UD 6 times in the past day.

    Get a clue.

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDOfficialPage/

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IntelligentDesignTheory/

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDIDI777ID/

  84. 84
    CHartsil says:

    “Articles”

    lol

    “After all, That’s what a jobless psychopath does.”

    Psychological projection is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.

  85. 85
    CHartsil says:

    Then you try addressing my objection to IC in the pinned post of my ID group. No one in the other ID group could manage to even start.

  86. 86
    Paleysghost says:

    Want to keep going, proven liar?

  87. 87
    Paleysghost says:

    Lincoln Phipps, Chris Koontz, Dave Keihl, Keith Fosberg and a bunch more are on the legitimate page criticizing ID Theory at this very moment. You were booted because you are a pathetic troll and an annoying joke, which is the same reason why you have been booted from UD 6 times in the past day.

    Get a clue.

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDOfficialPage/

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IntelligentDesignTheory/

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDIDI777ID/

  88. 88
    Paleysghost says:

    What’s the problem? Can’t you censor and delete the truth here like you do when called out on your bogus groups?

  89. 89
    CHartsil says:

    Then you try addressing my objection to IC in the pinned post of my ID group. No one in the other ID group could manage to even start.

    http://twitter.com/UncommonDescent
    http://www.facebook.com/UncommonDescent
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/UncommonDescent

  90. 90
    Paleysghost says:

    Waiting for your next response.
    …because we all know you will be responding.

    So, let’s do a recap…

    The guy ADMITS to 50,000 readers that he is making FAKE Behe and Meyer accounts and ADMITS to being an atheist who starts fraudulent Christian groups and ADMITS to having a large amount of FAKE profiles already pre-made and ready to go and then claims: “He’s the victim”.

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDOfficialPage/

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IntelligentDesignTheory/

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDIDI777ID/

  91. 91
    CHartsil says:

    Then you try addressing my objection to IC in the pinned post of my ID group. No one in the other ID group could manage to even start.

    Irreducible complexity remains fallacious on a number of levels. Out of the gate it is a gap argument as not knowing how X developed is not evidence *for* anything. Secondly are the falsification criteria. They each are separate fallacies themselves.
    Falsification criteria 1: Show that the system retains original function upon loss or removal of a protein or component.
    This is a strawman as well as ignorance of the process of co-optation. No one who is remotely literate in molecular biology is claiming that it should retain original function. What is important is that it has *a* function which can be selected for. Co-optation can and has been observed to produce systems which are comprised of components which cannot be knocked out without rendering the system functionless via multiple complementary mutations and modular of existing systems.
    Falsification criteria 2: Demonstrate an evolutionary pathway to an IC system.
    This is in direct contradiction to the definition of IC which includes “a system with no evolutionary pathway” That means if you show an evolutionary pathway then the system you’ve debunked will be discarded, not IC itself. Also the fact that ID proponents will say that certain systems which are known to have evolved cannot be IC specifically because we know they evolved is saying ignorance is a sufficient reason to believe IC.

  92. 92
    Paleysghost says:

    Want to keep going, proven liar?
    Are you a POE working for the Discovery Institute?

    No legitimate person could possibly be this dense, as to voluntarily expose themselves on a public blog.

  93. 93
    CHartsil says:

    Then you try addressing my objection to IC in the pinned post of my ID group. No one in the other ID group could manage to even start.

    Irreducible complexity remains fallacious on a number of levels. Out of the gate it is a gap argument as not knowing how X developed is not evidence *for* anything. Secondly are the falsification criteria. They each are separate fallacies themselves.
    Falsification criteria 1: Show that the system retains original function upon loss or removal of a protein or component.
    This is a strawman as well as ignorance of the process of co-optation. No one who is remotely literate in molecular biology is claiming that it should retain original function. What is important is that it has *a* function which can be selected for. Co-optation can and has been observed to produce systems which are comprised of components which cannot be knocked out without rendering the system functionless via multiple complementary mutations and modular of existing systems.
    Falsification criteria 2: Demonstrate an evolutionary pathway to an IC system.
    This is in direct contradiction to the definition of IC which includes “a system with no evolutionary pathway” That means if you show ­an evolutionary pathway then the system you’ve debunked will be discarded, not IC itself. Also the fact that ID proponents will say that certain systems which are known to have evolved cannot be IC specifically because we know they evolved is saying ignorance is a sufficient reason to believe IC.

  94. 94
    Paleysghost says:

    Waiting for your next response.
    …because we all know you will be responding.

    The guy ADMITS to 50,000 readers that he is making FAKE Behe and Meyer accounts and ADMITS to being an atheist who starts fraudulent Christian groups and ADMITS to having a large amount of FAKE profiles already pre-made and ready to go and then claims: “He’s the victim”.

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDOfficialPage/

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IntelligentDesignTheory/

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDIDI777ID/

  95. 95
    CHartsil says:

    Then you try addressing my objection to IC in the pinned post of my ID group. No one in the other ID group could manage to even start.

    Irreducible complexity remains fallacious on a number of levels. Out of the gate it is a gap argument as not knowing how X developed is not evidence *for* anything. Secondly are the falsification criteria. They each are separate fallacies themselves.
    Falsification criteria 1: Show that the system retains original function upon loss or removal of a protein or component.
    This is a strawman as well as ignorance of the process of co-optation. No one who is remotely literate in molecular biology is claiming that it should retain original function. What is important is that it has *a* function which can be selected for. Co-optation can and has been observed to produce systems which are comprised of components which cannot be knocked out without rendering the system functionless via multiple complementary mutations and modular of existing systems.
    Falsification criteria 2: Demonstrate an evolutionary pathway to an IC system.
    This is in direct contradiction to the definition of IC which includes “a system with no evolutionary pathway” That means if you show ­an evolutionary pa­thway then the system you’ve debunked will be discarded, not IC itself. Also the fact that ID proponents will say that certain systems which are known to have evolved cannot be IC specifically because we know they evolved is saying ignorance is a sufficient reason to believe IC.

  96. 96
    Paleysghost says:

    The horrible pinned OP on your admittedly bogus group was shredded 50 times by over 30 different people before you booted them from your group and deleted their comments.

    I have real work to do here in between responding to your troll spam comments after you’ve been booted 5 times from this site. Removing trash from your home is not synonymous with censorship. Everything you had to say remains on this thread and you are merely repeating yourself, now.

    Get a life, as the rest of us have a job to do.

  97. 97
    CHartsil says:

    Then you try addressing my objection to IC in the pinned post of my ID group. No one in the other ID group could manage to even start.

    Irreducible complexity remains fallacious on a number of levels. Out of the gate it is a gap argument as not knowing how X developed is not evidence *for* anything. Secondly are the falsification criteria. They each are separate fallacies themselves.
    Falsification criteria 1: Show that the system retains original function upon loss or removal of a protein or component.
    This is a strawman as well as ignorance of the process of co-optation. No one who is remotely literate in molecular biology is claiming that it should retain original function. What is important is that it has *a* function which can be selected for. Co-optation can and has been observed to produce systems which are comprised of components which cannot be knocked out without rendering the system functionless via multiple complementary mutations and modular of existing systems.
    Falsification criteria 2: Demonstrate an evolutionary pathway to an IC system.
    This is in direct contradiction to the definition of IC which includes “a system with no evolutionary pathway” That means if you show ­an evolutionary pa­thway then the system you’ve debunked will be discarded, not IC itself. Also the fact that ID proponents will say that certain systems which are known to have evolved cannot be IC speci­fically because we know they evolved is saying ignorance is a sufficient reason to believe IC.

  98. 98
    Paleysghost says:

    You can start here, on the short list:

    Michael Behe, “Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference”

    Irreducible Complexity: The Challenge to the Darwinian Evolutionary Explanations of many Biochemical Structures

    Casey Luskin, “More Similarities between Flagellum and Human-Designed Machines” (Evolution News and Views, June 30, 2008)

    Casey Luskin, “Leading Biologists Marvel at the “Irreducible Complexity” of the Ribosome, but Prefer Evolution-of-the-Gaps” (Evolution News and Views, Feb. 1, 2008)

    Casey Luskin, “Molecular Machines in the Cell”

    Molecular Machines Animations and Movies

    Video: William Dembski on Molecular Machines and the Death of Darwinism

    Video: Journey Inside the Cell

    Michael Behe’s Responses to Critics of Irreducible Complexity

    Michael Behe, “Reducible Versus Irreducible Systems and Darwinian Versus Non-Darwinian Processes” (Evolution News and Views, Sept. 14, 2009)

    Michael Behe, “Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions”

    Michael Behe On The Theory of Irreducible Complexity

    Michael Behe, “Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature: Response to Critics”

    Michael Behe, “Self-Organization and Irreducibly Complex Systems: A Reply to Shanks and Joplin” (Philosophy of Science, March, 2000)

    Michael Behe, “A Mousetrap Defended: Response to Critics”

    Michael Behe, “In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade: Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison”

    Michael Behe, “‘A True Acid Test’: Response to Ken Miller”

    Michael Behe “Comments on Ken Miller’s Reply to My Essays”

    Responses to Kenneth Miller on Irreducible Complexity

    William Dembski, “Still Spinning Just Fine: A Response to Ken Miller”

    Casey Luskin, “Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones’s Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum” (Evolution News and Views, June 30, 2008)

    Casey Luskin, “Kenneth Miller, Michael Behe, and the Irreducible Complexity of the Blood Clotting Cascade Saga” (Evolution News and Views, January 1, 2010)

    Casey Luskin, “Truth or Dare: A Lecture Guide to the Anti-Intelligent Design Claims by Dr. Kenneth Miller”

    Scott A. Minnich & Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits in Pathogenic Bacteria,” Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece

    Michael Behe, “In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade: Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison”

    Michael Behe, “‘A True Acid Test’: Response to Ken Miller”

    Michael Behe “Comments on Ken Miller’s Reply to My Essays”

  99. 99
    CHartsil says:

    Then you try addressing my objection to IC in the pinned post of my ID group. No one in the other ID group could manage to even start.

    Irreducible complexity remains fallacious on a number of levels. Out of the gate it is a gap argument as not knowing how X developed is not evidence *for* anything. Secondly are the falsification criteria. They each are separate fallacies themselves.
    Falsification criteria 1: Show that the system retains original function upon loss or removal of a protein or component.
    This is a strawman as well as ignorance of the process of co-optation. No one who is remotely literate in molecular biology is claiming that it should retain original function. What is important is that it has *a* function which can be selected for. Co-optation can and has been observed to produce systems which are comprised of components which cannot be knocked out without rendering the system functionless via multiple complementary mutations and modular of existing systems.
    Falsification criteria 2: Demonstrate an evolutionary pathway to an IC system.
    This is in direct contradiction to the definition of IC which includes “a system with no evolutionary pathway” That means if you show ­an evolutionary pa­thway then the system you’ve debunked will be discarded, not IC itself. Also the fact that ID proponents will say that certain systems which are known to have evolved can­not be IC speci­fically because we know they evolved is saying ignorance is a sufficient reason to believe IC.

  100. 100
    Paleysghost says:

    Everyone on the ID group refuted you on the first day.

  101. 101
    CHartsil says:

    You missed the point that IC itself is fallacy.

  102. 102
    CHartsil says:

    Then you try addressing my objection to IC in the pinned post of my ID group. No one in the other ID group could manage to even start.

    Irreducible complexity remains fallacious on a number of levels. Out of the gate it is a gap argument as not knowing how X developed is not evidence *for* anything. Secondly are the falsification criteria. They each are separate fallacies themselves.
    Falsification criteria 1: Show that the system retains original function upon loss or removal of a protein or component.
    This is a strawman as well as ignorance of the process of co-optation. No one who is remotely literate in molecular biology is claiming that it should retain original function. What is important is that it has *a* function which can be selected for. Co-optation can and has been observed to produce systems which are comprised of components which cannot be knocked out without rendering the system functionless via multiple complementary mutations and modular of existing systems.
    Falsification criteria 2: Demonstrate an evolutionary pathway to an IC system.
    This is in direct contradiction to the definition of IC which includes “a system with no evolutionary pathway” That means if you show ­an evolutionary pa­thway then the system you’ve debunked will be discard­ed, not IC itself. Also the fact that ID proponents will say that certain systems which are known to have evolved can­not be IC speci­fically because we know they evolved is saying ignorance is a sufficient reason to believe IC.

  103. 103
    Paleysghost says:

    You can start here, on the short list:

    Michael Behe, “Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference”

    Irreducible Complexity: The Challenge to the Darwinian Evolutionary Explanations of many Biochemical Structures

    Casey Luskin, “More Similarities between Flagellum and Human-Designed Machines” (Evolution News and Views, June 30, 2008)

    Casey Luskin, “Leading Biologists Marvel at the “Irreducible Complexity” of the Ribosome, but Prefer Evolution-of-the-Gaps” (Evolution News and Views, Feb. 1, 2008)

    Casey Luskin, “Molecular Machines in the Cell”

    Molecular Machines Animations and Movies

    Video: William Dembski on Molecular Machines and the Death of Darwinism

    Video: Journey Inside the Cell

    Michael Behe’s Responses to Critics of Irreducible Complexity

    Michael Behe, “Reducible Versus Irreducible Systems and Darwinian Versus Non-Darwinian Processes” (Evolution News and Views, Sept. 14, 2009)

    Michael Behe, “Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions”

    Michael Behe On The Theory of Irreducible Complexity

    Michael Behe, “Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature: Response to Critics”

    Michael Behe, “Self-Organization and Irreducibly Complex Systems: A Reply to Shanks and Joplin” (Philosophy of Science, March, 2000)

    Michael Behe, “A Mousetrap Defended: Response to Critics”

    Michael Behe, “In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade: Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison”

    Michael Behe, “‘A True Acid Test’: Response to Ken Miller”

    Michael Behe “Comments on Ken Miller’s Reply to My Essays”

    Responses to Kenneth Miller on Irreducible Complexity

    William Dembski, “Still Spinning Just Fine: A Response to Ken Miller”

    Casey Luskin, “Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones’s Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum” (Evolution News and Views, June 30, 2008)

    Casey Luskin, “Kenneth Miller, Michael Behe, and the Irreducible Complexity of the Blood Clotting Cascade Saga” (Evolution News and Views, January 1, 2010)

    Casey Luskin, “Truth or Dare: A Lecture Guide to the Anti-Intelligent Design Claims by Dr. Kenneth Miller”

    Scott A. Minnich & Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits in Pathogenic Bacteria,” Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece

    Michael Behe, “In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade: Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison”

    Michael Behe, “‘A True Acid Test’: Response to Ken Miller”

    Michael Behe “Comments on Ken Miller’s Reply to My Essays”

    Michael Behe, “‘A True Acid Test’: Response to Ken Miller”

    Michael Behe “Comments on Ken Miller’s Reply to My Essays”

    Responses to Kenneth Miller on Irreducible Complexity

    William Dembski, “Still Spinning Just Fine: A Response to Ken Miller”

    Casey Luskin, “Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones’s Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum” (Evolution News and Views, June 30, 2008)

    Casey Luskin, “Kenneth Miller, Michael Behe, and the Irreducible Complexity of the Blood Clotting Cascade Saga” (Evolution News and Views, January 1, 2010)

    Casey Luskin, “Truth or Dare: A Lecture Guide to the Anti-Intelligent Design Claims by Dr. Kenneth Miller”

    Scott A. Minnich & Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits in Pathogenic Bacteria,” Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece

    Michael Behe, “In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade: Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison”

    Michael Behe, “‘A True Acid Test’: Response to Ken Miller”

    Michael Behe “Comments on Ken Miller’s Reply to My Essays”

  104. 104
    CHartsil says:

    Then you try addressing my objection to IC in the pinned post of my ID group. No one in the other ID group could manage to even start.

    Irreducible complexity remains fallacious on a number of levels. Out of the gate it is a gap argument as not knowing how X developed is not evidence *for* anything. Secondly are the falsification criteria. They each are separate fallacies themselves.
    Falsification criteria 1: Show that the system retains original function upon loss or removal of a protein or component.
    This is a strawman as well as ignorance of the process of co-optation. No one who is remotely literate in molecular biology is claiming that it should retain original function. What is important is that it has *a* function which can be selected for. Co-optation can and has been observed to produce systems which are comprised of components which cannot be knocked out without rendering the system functionless via multiple complementary mutations and modular of existing systems.
    Falsification criteria 2: Demonstrate an evolutionary pathway to an IC system.
    This is in direct contradiction to the definition of IC which includes “a system with no evolutionary pathway” That means if you show ­an evolu­tionary pa­thway then the system you’ve debunked will be discarded, not IC itself. Also the fact that ID proponents will say that certain systems which are known to have evolved cannot be IC speci­fically because we know they evolved is saying ignorance is a sufficient reason to believe IC.

  105. 105
    Paleysghost says:

    You missed the point that you’ve been refuted 10 fold and nobody cares about your ridiculous pinned OP on your bogus ID page.

    Get a life.

  106. 106
    Paleysghost says:

    We understand that reading the material is not your strong point,
    but you can begin here on the short list:

    Michael Behe, “Reducible Versus Irreducible Systems and Darwinian Versus Non-Darwinian Processes” (Evolution News and Views, Sept. 14, 2009)

    Michael Behe, “Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions”

    Michael Behe On The Theory of Irreducible Complexity

    Michael Behe, “Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature: Response to Critics”

    Michael Behe, “Self-Organization and Irreducibly Complex Systems: A Reply to Shanks and Joplin” (Philosophy of Science, March, 2000)

    Michael Behe, “A Mousetrap Defended: Response to Critics”

    Michael Behe, “In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade: Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison”

    Michael Behe, “‘A True Acid Test’: Response to Ken Miller”

    Michael Behe “Comments on Ken Miller’s Reply to My Essays”

    Responses to Kenneth Miller on Irreducible Complexity

    William Dembski, “Still Spinning Just Fine: A Response to Ken Miller”

    Casey Luskin, “Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones’s Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum” (Evolution News and Views, June 30, 2008)

    Casey Luskin, “Kenneth Miller, Michael Behe, and the Irreducible Complexity of the Blood Clotting Cascade Saga” (Evolution News and Views, January 1, 2010)

    Casey Luskin, “Truth or Dare: A Lecture Guide to the Anti-Intelligent Design Claims by Dr. Kenneth Miller”

    Scott A. Minnich & Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits in Pathogenic Bacteria,” Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece

    Michael Behe, “In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade: Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison”

    Michael Behe, “‘A True Acid Test’: Response to Ken Miller”

    Michael Behe “Comments on Ken Miller’s Reply to My Essays”

    Michael Behe, “‘A True Acid Test’: Response to Ken Miller”

    Michael Behe “Comments on Ken Miller’s Reply to My Essays”

    Responses to Kenneth Miller on Irreducible Complexity

    William Dembski, “Still Spinning Just Fine: A Response to Ken Miller”

    Casey Luskin, “Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones’s Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum” (Evolution News and Views, June 30, 2008)

    Casey Luskin, “Kenneth Miller, Michael Behe, and the Irreducible Complexity of the Blood Clotting Cascade Saga” (Evolution News and Views, January 1, 2010)

    Casey Luskin, “Truth or Dare: A Lecture Guide to the Anti-Intelligent Design Claims by Dr. Kenneth Miller”

    Scott A. Minnich & Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits in Pathogenic Bacteria,” Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece

    Michael Behe, “In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade: Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison”

    Michael Behe, “‘A True Acid Test’: Response to Ken Miller”

    Michael Behe “Comments on Ken Miller’s Reply to My Essays”

  107. 107
    CHartsil says:

    Then you try addressing my objection to IC in the pinned post of my ID group. No one in the other ID group could manage to even start.

    Irreducible complexity remains fallacious on a number of levels. Out of the gate it is a gap argument as not knowing how X developed is not evidence *for* anything. Secondly are the falsification criteria. They each are separate fallacies themselves.
    Falsification criteria 1: Show that the system retains original function upon loss or removal of a protein or component.
    This is a strawman as well as ignorance of the process of co-optation. No one who is remotely literate in molecular biology is claiming that it should retain original function. What is important is that it has *a* function which can be selected for. Co-optation can and has been observed to produce systems which are comprised of components which cannot be knocked out without rendering the system functionless via multiple complementary mutations and modular of existing systems.
    Falsification criteria 2: Demonstrate an evolutionary pathway to an IC system.
    This is in direct contrad­iction to the definition of IC which includes “a system with no evolutionary pathway” That means if you show ­an evolu­tionary pa­thway then the system you’ve debunked will be discarded, not IC itself. Also the fact that ID proponents will say that certain systems which are known to have evolved cannot be IC speci­fically because we know they evolved is saying ignorance is a sufficient reason to believe IC.

  108. 108
    Joe says:

    LoL! @ CHartsil- your position doesn’t even have a testable hypothesis for IC systems. The definition of IC does not contain the words “a system with no evolutionary pathway”. That may be a description of why it is evidence for ID

  109. 109
    CHartsil says:

    I was using the definition used by the admin of the other ID group. Are you saying that IC systems can evolve?

    “That may be a description of why it is evidence for ID”

    That’s why it’s a gap argument.

  110. 110
    CHartsil says:

    As far as a testable hypothesis, I’m arguing against IC specifically. We already know that biological systems comprised of interdependent interacting components can evolve. Lenski did it numerous times with his E. coli.

  111. 111
    Joe says:

    CH- the only definitions of IC that matter of those approved by Dr Behe and not one says what you said.

    And Lenski didn’t do what you think he did.

    Do you think archaeology, forensic science and SETI use gap arguments? You must.

  112. 112
    Joe says:

    The best Lenski et al. have is some of their E. coli can get to the citrate in their environment. They already had that ability in an anaerobic environment. They already had the ability to digest citrate. All that happened was the gene for the citrate transport protein is off in the presence of oxygen and it was duplicated and the duplicate was under the control of a promoter that was on in the presence of oxygen.

    It doesn’t even support unguided evolution.

  113. 113
    CHartsil says:

    “the only definitions of IC that matter of those approved by Dr Behe and not one says what you said.”

    That’s not the way science works. If the progenitor of a model had final say then we would be stuck solely with descent with modification. Science is not authoritarian.

    “And Lenski didn’t do what you think he did.”

    His E. coli underwent multiple, complementary mutations which conferred novel function due to the addition of information. To say that it’s not an increase in information would be akin to saying “People can breathe, so breathing underwater would not be a new trait”

    It was just a promoter mutation, it produced a novel regulatory module in the cit* population.

  114. 114
    CHartsil says:

    “Do you think archaeology, forensic science and SETI use gap arguments?”

    No, they’re comparing apples to apples, systems and products of known design to systems produced by the exact same process. They’re not making inferences from non-living systems to living systems.

  115. 115
    Paleysghost says:

    Did you seriously just sign in with your 7th account to make a bigger fool out yourself? You don’t actually have a job or purpose in life, huh?

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDOfficialPage/

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IntelligentDesignTheory/

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDIDI777ID/

  116. 116
    Paleysghost says:

    You missed the point that you’ve been refuted 10 fold and nobody cares about your ridiculous pinned OP on your bogus ID page.

    Get a life.

  117. 117
    Paleysghost says:

    I made the short list even shorter for your comprehension ability level:

    Michael Behe, “Reducible Versus Irreducible Systems and Darwinian Versus Non-Darwinian Processes” (Evolution News and Views, Sept. 14, 2009)

    Michael Behe, “Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions”

    Michael Behe On The Theory of Irreducible Complexity

    Michael Behe, “Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature: Response to Critics”

    Michael Behe, “Self-Organization and Irreducibly Complex Systems: A Reply to Shanks and Joplin” (Philosophy of Science, March, 2000)

    Michael Behe, “A Mousetrap Defended: Response to Critics”

    Michael Behe, “In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade: Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison”

    Michael Behe, “‘A True Acid Test’: Response to Ken Miller”

    Michael Behe “Comments on Ken Miller’s Reply to My Essays”

    Responses to Kenneth Miller on Irreducible Complexity

    William Dembski, “Still Spinning Just Fine: A Response to Ken Miller”

    Casey Luskin, “Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones’s Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum” (Evolution News and Views, June 30, 2008)

    Casey Luskin, “Kenneth Miller, Michael Behe, and the Irreducible Complexity of the Blood Clotting Cascade Saga” (Evolution News and Views, January 1, 2010)

    Casey Luskin, “Truth or Dare: A Lecture Guide to the Anti-Intelligent Design Claims by Dr. Kenneth Miller”

    Scott A. Minnich & Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits in Pathogenic Bacteria,” Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece

    Michael Behe, “In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade: Response to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison”

  118. 118
    Paleysghost says:

    You were also corrected 30 times on your sham group in regard to your complete misunderstanding of Lenski’ e.coli, but you just keep on ticking.

    You are apparently a POE account.
    …as nobody legitimate could actually be this stupid.

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....79401.html

  119. 119
    Paleysghost says:

    There is no debate here, Chartsil, as you ADMITTED to making fake Michael Behe accounts and then ADMITTED to running fraudulent groups and then your spam comments above have been refuted by just about everyone under the sun.

    You honestly look like a clown at this point who’s only goal is to get a rise out of someone.

    Grow up and get a life.

  120. 120
    CHartsil says:

    Funny how according to you I’ve been corrected on everything but you can’t address a single bit of it here.

    Your’e finally right about one thing, there’s no debate. ID is crap you suffer from Dunning-Kruger.

    “You honestly look like a clown at this point who’s only goal is to get a rise out of someone.”

    Says the one that broke in on someone else’s conversation to repeat the same garbage.

  121. 121
    CHartsil says:

    “Heavily unemphasized is the ominous fact that one loss of function mutation is “improved” by another loss of function mutation — by degrading a second gene.”

    I would expect for you to be this stupid but Behe actually has a degree from, somewhere I guess.

    The ‘degrading’ of the second gene was on a duplicate gene. No function was lost.

  122. 122
    Paleysghost says:

    Did you seriously just sign in with your 8th account to make a bigger fool out yourself? You don’t actually have a job or purpose in life, huh?

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDOfficialPage/

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IntelligentDesignTheory/

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDIDI777ID/

  123. 123
    CHartsil says:

    “You don’t actually have a job or purpose in life, huh?”

    Coming from the person compulsively commenting to try to get the last word.

    http://twitter.com/UncommonDescent
    http://www.facebook.com/UncommonDescent
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/UncommonDescent

  124. 124
    Paleysghost says:

    Are you not aware that getting booted 7 times might be an indication that this blog does not want your troll spam here?

    “Well, don’t forget, he could be making a mistake targeting a private not-for-profit. We pay fees to a provider to provide a free service, supported by donations. If someone comes along and disrupts it, that might not just be Let the Facebook Games begin! If he ends up creating a problem, he might want to get legal advice.”

  125. 125
    Paleysghost says:

    I’ll see you later when you sign in with your 9th account, as nobody actually expects you to have a job or life anytime soon. Please, continue with your spam.

    “Lenski is an optimistic man, and always accentuates the positive. In the paper on mutT and mutY, the stress is on how the bacterium has improved with the second mutation. Heavily unemphasized is the ominous fact that one loss of function mutation is “improved” by another loss of function mutation — by degrading a second gene. Anyone who is interested in long-term evolution should see this as a baleful portent for any theory of evolution that relies exclusively on blind, undirected processes.”

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....79401.html

  126. 126
    Paleysghost says:

    There is no debate here, Chartsil, as you ADMITTED to making fake Michael Behe accounts and then ADMITTED to running fraudulent groups and then your spam comments above have been refuted by just about everyone under the sun.

    You honestly look like a clown at this point who’s only goal is to get a rise out of someone.

    Grow up and get a life.

  127. 127
    CHartsil says:

    “nobody actually expects you to have a job or life anytime soon. Please, continue with your spam.”

    Again, says the person that is compulsively after the last word.

    Notice you haven’t actually addressed anything I’ve said?

  128. 128
    CHartsil says:

    ­

  129. 129
    Paleysghost says:

    Account number 10 on it’s way, huh?

    There is no debate here, Chartsil, as you ADMITTED to making fake Michael Behe accounts and then ADMITTED to running fraudulent groups and then your spam comments above have been refuted by just about everyone under the sun.

    You honestly look like a clown at this point who’s only goal is to get a rise out of someone.

    Grow up and get a life.

  130. 130
    Paleysghost says:

    Do you understand what the main article above is about, Andrew Lowe (oops), I mean Chartsil?

    The main article is all about your fraud and kiddie games on facebook, which not only have been proven above, but have your full admittance and even gleeful thumbs up.

    End thread/

  131. 131
    Paleysghost says:

    But, there are a few unanswered questions in regard to the main article, Andrew Lowe.

    Such as “Why do you create so many 1 member groups (like “Test” and “Plenty of Fish”) and then promote a single fake account to be admin and then let them linger in hiatus?

    Is this all part of a facebook marketing scam? The authorities we are contacting will want to know the answers to these questions.

    https://www.facebook.com/PhysicsPanda/groups?pnref=lhc

  132. 132
    Paleysghost says:

    The Southern California Chapter of the Discovery Institute’s Discovery Society invite evolutionists to engage in a logical scientific debate based on findings of fact not philosophy. We ask evolutionists to explain the sudden appearance of thousands of various life forms in the Cambrian layer of geologic strata without evidence of precursor organisms. Until evolutionists can explain the “Cambrian Explosion” without speculation, and answer the 10 questions that follow, Intelligent Design must be considered the explanation that best fits the evidence.

    Ten Questions:

    Nucleotides and proteins are entirely different molecules. How can evolution explain the concomitant production of one by the other i.e. the chicken-and-egg-relationship of DNA, RNA and protein in the “primordial soup.” It is impossible to produce one without having produced the others first.

    99.9% of mutations are deleterious. How can evolution work upstream, i.e. fortuitously producing an improved mutation and protecting it from further deleterious mutation, while producing yet more new fortuitous mutations?

    If there is such a thing as “natural selection”, then why are 30 percent of the genes in a genome polymorphic?

    If Darwinism is right, then why do so many evolutionists say it’s wrong; and why is Motoo Kimura’s theory of neutral mutation with random drift the current favored hypothesis among evolutionists?

    If evolution is right, then how can there be so many differing explanations for the hypothesis, i.e. Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, punctuated equilibrium, symbiogenesis, and neutral mutation with random drift?

    Isn’t it true that the basic axiom of science is one phenomenon, one explanation? Therefore, isn’t it true that if the hypothesis of evolution has multiple explanations, it must be wrong; otherwise there would be only one explanation?

    How can evolutionary hypothesis explain the irreducible complexity of complex biological systems which require the simultaneous integration of multiple structural and enzymatic components, i.e. the concomitant production of alveolar lungs (structural genes), and, surfactant type phospholipids (enzymatic genes), and proteins necessary to neutralize the effect of lung surface tension? Premature infants die unless both are present. Wouldn’t the first primordial mammals have died, also?

    How can evolutionists circumvent the demands of the Hardy-Weinberg law (the incidence of a gene in a genome remains constant generation after generation, no matter whether it is dominant or recessive, or rare). Trying to use “gene flow,” bottle-neck or founder effect hypotheses is untenable because Muller’s ratchet demands that isolation and founder effect destroy a genome if a population’s genome becomes smaller and smaller?

    How can a contralateral-functioning cortex and the basal gangliar systems of a telencephalon be successfully superimposed on an ipsilateral-functioning cerebellum and rhombencephalon?

    How can lateral vision, with complete decusation of optic pathways, at the optic chiasm undergo transition to forward facing binocular vision, using a partially decusating optic chiasm, a step at a time, and still remain functional while undergoing the transition? Wouldn’t the information directed to the optic cortex from each eye become contradictory, and produce a nonfunctioning organism? And, what about the need to produce a new eye socket, a new wiring system, and a new method of integrating the concomitant focusing of both eyes on the same object, and properly directing the information from each retina to the proper locations in the paired optic radiations? (See figures 2 A and 2 B by clicking the Irreducible Complexity button)

    Purpose of This Web Site

    The purpose of this web site is to present reliable information in support of intelligent design, and irreducible complexity as the proximate causes of life and its diversity. Information provided here is based entirely on empirically derived fact.

    Irreducible Complexity is an indisputable fact of biologic function. Irreducible Complexity is indicative of intelligent design. Therefore, the world in which we live is better understood in terms of design, as opposed to spontaneous origin and evolution.

    Our efforts are dedicated to disseminating factual information, and answering the question: are we the result of chance or design? It is our objective to confirm and propagate scientific truth: that which is correct now; has always been correct; and will always be correct.

    We encourage all who love science to condemn the actions of those who pervert the truth and use the prestige of their positions in urging students to disregard evidence of design in biologic systems, and instead see evolution. Teachers have an obligation to present facts and let intelligent minds decide their significance. To do otherwise is too insult all the science that has gone before and turn science upside down.

    http://irreduciblecomplexity.org/index.html

  133. 133
    Paleysghost says:

    Staying on point with the main article:

    The “original” Official Page is a legitimate Pro-ID endeavor that was established on facebook 6 years ago and approximately a year ago “Chartsil” (using the fake name Ethan Metzger) was booted for the exact same kind of spam trolling that he displays in the above thread.

    In retaliation, he dishonestly created a copy / cat group using the Official Page artwork and identical name for the purpose of fooling people into thinking it was the original group.

    Hartsil then created fake Behe and Meyer accounts to collect unsuspecting religious folks to dump (against their knowledge) into his fake group.

    Hartsil then proceeded to ban anyone who defended ID.

    The individual who operates over 65 fake accounts routinely makes copy / cat groups of already existing Pro-religion groups for the purpose of spreading lies and hate and fraud.

    Does that about cover it, Mr Chartsil?

  134. 134
    Paleysghost says:

    Anybody interested in legitimate discussion regarding Evolution and Intelligent Design can find honest people at these 3 facebook groups:

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDOfficialPage/

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IntelligentDesignTheory/

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/IDIDI777ID/

  135. 135
    CHartsil says:

    All except the part about me booting anyone who tried to defend ID. I didn’t boot them, they just couldn’t defend ID because it’s not science.

Leave a Reply