|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
 Posted - 09/05/2005 : 14:10:09 [Permalink]
|
i]Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar...[/i]
1. Each species was planned as separate entities and did not proceed one from the other.
Planned by who? Where's your evidence of such an occurrence?
Do I need to know "who", or is it enough to know that some intelligent being or beings did leave clues in their work? When an archeologist finds a mummy, does he say to himself, "I dont' know who this is, so I might as well just bury it again and forget about it"? or, does he investigate the mummy, cut it open and delve into the many clues surrounding it and in it?
When we discover an undeniable complexity with seeming intelligence in its design, do we bury it or try to learn more about it and form a hypothesis about it? We have to start somewhere. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
 |
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 14:14:55 [Permalink]
|
| Dave said, "Now, if we make it more conservative by assuming that out of all possible mutations, only 0.1% are beneficial"Wow! Conservative? How bout .000000000000000000000000000000000000001%...now that's conservative. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 14:15:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar...
1. Each species was planned as separate entities and did not proceed one from the other.
Who do you speculate planned these creatures as separate entities? Where's your evidence of such an occurrence?
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 14:22:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Do I need to know "who", or is it enough to know that some intelligent being or beings did leave clues in their work? When an archeologist finds a mummy, does he say to himself, "I dont' know who this is, so I might as well just bury it again and forget about it"? or, does he investigate the mummy, cut it open and delve into the many clues surrounding it and in it?
When we discover an undeniable complexity with seeming intelligence in its design, do we bury it or try to learn more about it and form a hypothesis about it? We have to start somewhere.
The mummy is not analogous, since we know humans created mummies. You're asking us to accept a generalization to any unknown intelligence from a sample size of one: human design. That's logically untenable.
If there's "seeming intelligence" in the design of human beings, why is it that we break so easily? Why do our breathing and eating tubes cross, allowing for us to choke to death on our food? Evolution offers an answer, "intelligent design" does not.
Neither you nor the bigwigs at the DI have demonstrated that intelligence is necessary for any particular trait in any living thing. Until you do, it's just an assumption, and assumptions - according to you - invalidate a science. Your argument is self-defeating. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 14:28:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Wow! Conservative? How bout .000000000000000000000000000000000000001%...now that's conservative.
Upon what scientific grounds should the rate of "beneficial" mutations be so low?
You missed the point, anyway: the 35-million base pairs we don't share with chimps are not necessarily "beneficial" in any sense of the word. You said it yourself, we're weaker than chimps. We get diseases they don't. Tossing in that 0.1% number is a fudge factor in your favor which has little basis in reality. So I'll correct my previous conclusion, and say that there need only have been 140 individuals (worldwide!) for the correct number of mutations to come about in five million years.
Too bad for you. You were better off before you argued that number. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 14:29:09 [Permalink]
|
Gosh Doomar. I'll tell you what. I usually don't get into these debates because, to tell you the truth, they don't mean anything. Convincing you that evolution happens and explains the diversity of life on this planet is an exercise in futility. Since you have been given, over and over, very good explanations for how evolution works and you insist on falling back on the same old creationist arguments, I would say that your worldview has left you incapable of getting how science works. Since evolution is so widely accepted and is the cornerstone of biology, what you believe about it doesn't really matter. Of course, I will fight any attempt by you and all of those like you who are so woefully ignorant of science, to keep your speculations (no creationist has ever presented an idea that rises to the level of a theory) out of science classrooms. That is where our war is. Creationism itself is an empty suit. Saying God (or the substitute word for God, “intelligence”) did it is not science. All attempts by creationists to prove evolution does not happen (their only arguments in support of their belief) has failed. Anyhow, should a creationist actually manage to poke a hole in evolution, (and don't hold your breath for that to happen) creationism even when dressed up as ID does not win by default, since there is no theory there.
quote:
Doomar:
The more complex the genes and cells, the more difficult to explain random genetic mutations proceeding into extremely complex systems of life that are more complex than the preceding. And thus, some scientists are searching for ways to explain that which cannot be explained by material evolution. The relatively new field of intelligent design attempts to deal with these questions.
This is just wrong. There is no such thing as irreducible complexity in the context of evolution. And all the hand waving in the world by you and the Discover Institute will not change that fact. The idea that scientists are searching for a way to explain a concept that was made up by creationists and supported by the opinion and only in part by roughly one lazy biologist, in a popular book, is baloney. That science is trying to, but can't explain irreducible complexity is nothing but a strawman argument since irreducible complexity a creationist invention.
quote:
Doomar:
Those that think it is some "pseudo science" have either yet to study it or simply fear the consequences to their own positions should it take hold and actual research continue.
How should it be studied? How do you study the “God did it” hypothesis? How can it be tested? How can it be falsified? How can it be used to make predictions? This is basic stuff Doomar. ID is not a theory. It is speculation by believers. It will never ever be science since it can't be science. It is a supernatural claim as good as the claim that ghosts exist and John Edwards can talk to dead people, and that you contain the reincarnated spirit of Joan Of Arch. The only difference is we have to fight to keep this crap out of our schools as a scientific theory, mostly due to the wide spread ignorance of folks like you…
And by the way, I have nothing to say about your belief in God. Neither does science. I would defend your beliefs right up to the point where you try to have those beliefs taught as science.
Edited...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 14:34:07 [Permalink]
|
http://www.designinference.com/
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
These pages can lead you to many other pages with specific information in regards to ID.
I don't have the time to continue this discussion in detail, as my work calls. This weekend I had much free time. I am not a scientist, nor am I capable of putting forth detailed arguments on this subject. Many others have and their writings are worth reading. I am capable of noting illogical connections, such as the one made in the opening of this thread attributing gene findings in chimps to further support of Darwin's theory. I hope that by pointing out leaps of logic as mistakes in thinking it helps. If nothing else, it stirs one up to learn more about the subjects in question. I know I have learned more this weekend.
Many brilliant minds have done work in this relatively new field of ID. Opposition, such as Dave's and his arguments are dealt with on some of the pages of the above mentioned links.l
Let's try to be more like Gallileo who pushed forward in his research and understanding despite forces to the contrary in his day.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 14:52:10 [Permalink]
|
Go Doomar, Go Doomar, Go Doomar!
Kinda like the energizer bunny, you just keep going and going and going....
The amazing part is that you even admit you don't know jack about science or evolution.
Guess that just makes you another lair for god.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 14:59:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar:
ok then, so we rule out magic, being that magic is just smoke and mirrors.
Thank you for agreeing that Creationism, Scientific Creationism, and Intellignet Design Creationism can all be ruled out as valid scientific theories. Because as their basis, they all have one thing: PFM (Pure Fucking Magic).
quote:
Upon study, this inherant complexity or simplicity can be shown as consistently outside the boundary of natural, chance mutation.
If, indeed, "mother nature" allows for mutations to occur that significantly change a species, this was part of an inbuilt intelligence in the life systems of that creature and not a "natural and random occurance driven solely by "selection process".
It can also be true that environmental changes or extreme
circumstances can trigger such changes, not simply random mutations coalesing into positive changes.
Lay off the swill from the DI for a while and read
The Blind Watchmaker (here in pdf format).
Maybe that will explain it for you.
|
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 15:00:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
http://www.designinference.com/
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
These pages can lead you to many other pages with specific information in regards to ID.
Yes, it's all been said before, and refuted long ago.quote:
I don't have the time to continue this discussion in detail, as my work calls. This weekend I had much free time.
Ah, I see how things are, now. Make a whole bunch of poor arguments, accuse one of your opponents of plagiarism, and then get while the gettin's good.quote:
I am not a scientist, nor am I capable of putting forth detailed arguments on this subject. Many others have and their writings are worth reading.
What about the many more people who put forth arguments opposing the ones you prefer? Are their writings worth reading?quote:
I am capable of noting illogical connections, such as the one made in the opening of this thread attributing gene findings in chimps to further support of Darwin's theory.
Unfortunately, you have a backwards understanding of what evolutionary theory states, and that's why you think there's a problem with the logic.quote:
I hope that by pointing out leaps of logic as mistakes in thinking it helps. If nothing else, it stirs one up to learn more about the subjects in question. I know I have learned more this weekend.
You don't demonstrate it.quote:
Many brilliant minds have done work in this relatively new field of ID.
You're also mistaken in your idea that ID is "new." We can show you that it is centuries old.quote:
Opposition, such as Dave's and his arguments are dealt with on some of the pages of the above mentioned links.l
Really? Why don't you point out where they specifically state that your view of evolutionary theory is identical to that used by evolutionary biologists? That shouldn't take up much of your time, just that one link.quote:
Let's try to be more like Gallileo who pushed forward in his research and understanding despite forces to the contrary in his day.
The "forces to the contrary in his day" were dogmatic believers in the Bible as ultimate truth. Today's "forces contrary" to the idea of evolutionary theory are also mostly dogmatic believers in the Bible as ultimate truth. They say so. Dembski's ID "is just the Logos of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." Wells was ordered by the Reverend Sun Myung Moon to get a PhD in biology in order to destroy materialistic evolution. The number-one funder of the Discovery Institute's "Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture" was for many years a Christian Reconstructionist out to replace the U.S. Constitution with the Bible.
So, to be consistent with your analogy, we should be like scientists defending a scientific notion (evolution) from the much larger number of people who would overturn it (larger in the U.S., at least). Note that many who would see evolution go by the wayside are people in power, too (like Bush, Kathy Martin, numerous school-board members, etc.), just like in Galilleo's day when he was fighting the Church. So yeah, I've been following Galilleo's lead, and I'll continue to do so, Doomar. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 15:44:11 [Permalink]
|
Doomar,you are so patronising it makes me nauseaus.
What makes you think that the conclusions you have drawn from your "readings" are any more valid than anyone elses.
I've been studying this question from both sides intentely for some 30 odd years now, and have reached entirely different assumptions than you.
You might well have weighed yourself down with the theological side of the argument but have given short shrift to the other side of the argument.
And there is the difference.
Whilst others here have been trying to conduct this discussion according to the standards of debate, you've just wanted to argue.
You've done more to drive me away from "intelligent design" theory than anyone or thing else I know.
Well done.
If you are truly interested in exploring the other side of your hypothosis I would strongly suggest you read "The blind watchmaker", the text of which has been supplied above.
If you truly want to put the energy you invest in this thread to good use, here is a great starting point.
It's all very well to suggest an intelligent designer is responsible for EVERYTHING, but I still have one final question for you.
Who designed God? |
"I'll go along with the charade
Until I can think my way out.
I know it was all a big joke
Whatever it was about."
Bob Dylan
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 19:33:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
By the way, your quote of Madison was missing a word...it should read, "Religious "
Basic reading comprenension, clearly, is not a skill you can boast of.
If my sig quote is incorrect, why don't you give me the whole quote? Compare and contrast?
What is the FIRST freakin word in my quote of Madison? FFS Doomar. Get yourself together man.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 21:58:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
It is clearly not simply a "scientific" debate, however. Many holding to material evolution from a naturalist viewpoint strongly oppose any new science implying "intelligence" and not simply random or natural selection. Rather than allowing a free discussion of new ideas, it seems many are bent at quashing that discussion before it hardly starts. THis is hardly the "scientific viewpoint" that allows for a free flow of ideas and debate. The implications of a new theory that studies extremely intricate and seemingly planned systems of life with this viewpoint opens new doors of understanding and research in the scientific community.
Yeah, Doofus, I know you desperately wish this were true, then you could pretend you and your creationist ilk are "oppressed" rather than simply wrong. But the fact is, even without a "naturalist viewpoint" neither creationism or ID can come up with a workable scientific theory.
On another forum a poster by the name of 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote this. I liked it so much I saved it. It completely dashes the fiction that you suffer from some sort of undue scientific prejudice.
quote:
The scientific method is very simple, and consists of five basic steps. They are:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe
2. Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you have observed
3. Make testible predictions from that hypothesis
4. Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions
5. Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations and predictions
NOTHING in any of those five steps excludes on principle, a priori, any “supernatural cause”. Using this method, one is entirely free to invoke as many non-material pixies, ghosts, goddesses, demons, devils, djinis, and/or the Great Pumpkin, as many times as you like, in any or all of your hypotheses. And science won't (and doesn't) object to that in the slightest. Indeed, scientific experiments have been proposed (and carried out and published) on such “supernatural causes” as the effects of prayer on healing, as well as such “non-materialistic” or “non-natural” causes as ESP, telekinesis, precognition and “remote viewing”. So ID's claim that science unfairly rejects supernatural or non-material causes out of hand on principle, is demonstrably quite wrong.
However, what science DOES require is that any supernatural or non-material hypothesis, whatever it might be, then be subjected to steps 3, 4 and 5. And HERE is where ID fails miserably.
To demonstate this, let's pick a particular example of an ID hypothesis and see how the scientific method can be applied to it: One claim made by many ID creationists explains the genetic similarity between humans and chimps by asserting that God — uh, I mean, An Unknown Intelligent Designer — created both but used common features in a common design.
Let's take this hypothesis and put it through the scientific method:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
OK, so we observe that humans and chimps share unique genetic markers, including a broken vitamin C gene and, in humans, a fused chromosome that is identical to two of the chimp chromosomes (with all the appropriate doubled centromeres and telomeres).
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
OK, the proposed ID hypothesis is “an intelligent designer used a common design to produce both chimps and humans, and that common design included placing the signs of a fused chromosome and a broken vitamin C gene in both products.”
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
Well, here is ID |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/05/2005 22:01:17 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2005 : 22:10:45 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, the good Rev Dr Lenny has a way with words. Always enjoy his comments at Panda's Thumb and sometimes over at PZ Meyers blog as well.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 09/06/2005 : 04:38:09 [Permalink]
|
BTW, thanks for the link to the Blind Watchmaker. I haven't read this before and I'm thoroughly enjoying it.
Too bad more people don't (or won't) read it. Maybe it should be required reading in schools when ID is forced in with ToE. If I were teaching high school biology, my reading list would probably get me arrested and burned at the stake for heresy.
And that is the one thing I don't understand about this whole "debate." Why do christians give a rat's ass about what is taught in public schools? They can simply take their kids and have them taught in church run schools, and there are plenty of them.
You can let the rest of the heathen be taught actual science in gov't funded schools.
If the answer is "i'm not paying my taxes to fund that", then my retorte is "tough shit."
Being part of a Social Contract means that sometimes you do things you don't like to do. I don't like to pay taxes that go to funding our little "war", but I have to.
If you don't like it, leave. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 09/06/2005 04:41:43 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
