|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
 Posted - 10/31/2004 : 15:10:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Damn guys, y'all are gettin' slow. I picked up on Jerry's anti 'secluar humanist' bent the first time he bad-mouthed Talk Orgins.
Gimme a break here, filthy. There's been so much here to sort through, and I only have so many hours in a day to spend on it. And especially this time of year, Halloween and all that. So many satanic rituals to attend, evil spirits to conjure, and general mayhem to spread, well lets just say I've been a little preoccupied. You know how it is. |
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
|
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 15:46:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
quote:
Damn guys, y'all are gettin' slow. I picked up on Jerry's anti 'secluar humanist' bent the first time he bad-mouthed Talk Orgins.
Gimme a break here, filthy. There's been so much here to sort through, and I only have so many hours in a day to spend on it. And especially this time of year, Halloween and all that. So many satanic rituals to attend, evil spirits to conjure, and general mayhem to spread, well lets just say I've been a little preoccupied. You know how it is.
Yeah, I can dig it.
Fortunatly, I've been prepared for Halloween for some time. A friend who keeps a very large burmese python gave me a shed. It's in a couple of pieces and a little ragged, but it's ok. That plus four sheds from the residents here are tonight's decore. It should be pretty good, as the neighborhood kids (and their parents) now approach my door with some trepidation. The hissing cockroach incident, you know. Good, clean fun!
Wish I could borrow a medium-sized alligator......
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 16:15:00 [Permalink]
|
Cuneiformist
quote:
However, in responding to this, you accused me of making it up. Now, I could have understood this if, say, I didn't link anything, or if I did, but put the link in a strange place. But I didn't. The link was right there. So not only did I not make it up, but you were lazy enough to not even bother to check the reference and reply to it. And worse, you accuse me of making the quote up.
The link didn't say anything about what you asked me that I could find. All I could find in there on the subject was a link to the institute and to a document on 'the wedge' in which I could find no statement to the effect that there exists a strategy to destroy science and replace it with something called theistic science. There is no such thing as theistic science I am aware of; as this is an oxymoron.
And I thought I answered your question when I posted something to the effect of, no, I don't support these people because they seem more like religionists than scientists as a whole and I despise the hypocritical churches more than I despise atheists who have made up their minds the other way, if you can believe this. Both are religionists. The only difference is that they are on the opposite poles of the religious spectrum.
Having met several of these guys, I can tell you what I think they want. They want the truth taught. They want secular humanists to release the grip they have on academia and allow the controversy of Darwinism to be taught along with the evidence that exists for it. What is wrong with this? I suppose I support this, I would support the opposite as well.
If it were the other way around and the evidence that does exist for Darwinism were being hidden from students, I would not support that either because I don't believe in stifling free-thought. Teach it thorns and all and let the individual make up there own minds.
Devoted Darwinists simply take it too far which is why we have this huge rift between this science and the public. Do you actually think that the public buys into the postulate that species magically started giving birth to other species when science tells us this is scientifically impossible?
Even in reproductive isolationism, no reputable institution has ever reported a case where one species morphed into another one. We have been doing breeding experiments hundreds of years before Darwin came along and we have never seen a dog turn into anything other than a dog and experiments show that in the case of reproductive isolation, when these populations are allowed to intermingle again, they go right back to interbreeding the same way they did before they were isolated.
NONE of the tenets of Darwinism I am aware of fall under the category of science in the way the scientific method requires they do in order to be validly considered scientific theory.
Common descent cannot be falsified, the tenet that my great-great-grandfather was an ape-like critter cannot be falsified, the concept that Pakicetus was a land dwelling critter, crawled off into the oceans and became a ferocious whale with legs and big teeth cannot be falsified. I could go on with three more pages naming the things that science teachers teach in our schools as absolute scientific fact when it is not even science to begin with.
There is even today less evidence to support Darwinism than there was in the days of Darwin as some of it has had to be rejected. Nobody on this forum can post a single non-controversial paper that has been published in the last hundred years to the effect of, 'Now here is some new evidence for Darwinism.'
I posted a poll on some forum a while back that stated out of college graduates, those who have actually studied the subject formally, only 10% of them accept Darwinism as it is taught in universities. Sure, the figures are higher than this when we throw believers of theistic evolution in there, but still, a whopping 50 something percent simply reject it outright.
How many college graduates do you know that reject gravity, relativity, inertia or quantum mechanics outright like this? This should tell you that Darwinism has some major problems and it is not due to religion. There is nothing in the Bible that states man could not have evolved I am aware of.
Darwinists seem intelligent, so what is it that cause intelligent people to think like this:
Jerry: My wife went on the Adkins diet two months ago and has lost 15 pounds each month. She weights 150 pounds now, so if she keeps this up how much weight will she lose if she continues this for 10 months?
DARWINIST: Your wife will weigh exactly 0.
CRITICAL THINKER: She will level out somewhere and won't be able to lose anymore weight past a certain point.
Jerry: I went on a high protein diet and weight lifting regime and bulked up 20 pounds. How much do you think I will weigh if I continue this the rest of my life?
DARWINIST: You will weigh around 5500 pounds.
CRITICAL THINKER: Ah....You might bulk up a couple of more pounds but you will level off soon, just try to stay in shape.
Jerry: I have a study here that shows American men have grown in height about 4 inches since the 1800s. I wonder how tall men will be in 5000 years?
DARWINIST: American men will be 62 feet tall.
CRITICAL THINKER: That is probably due to better medicine and nutrition and I would be surprised to see this trend progress much further than what we see now.
So what is the real origin of man? It certainly doesn't seem to be abiogenesis and evolution. Darwinists will never know this because they have made up their minds on false premises and closed it to criticism of those premises. I'm hoping that the more intellectually open intelligent design will answer this question. If the answer to the question is Darwinism, then so be it and let the chips fall where they may. |
| Edited by - JerryB on 10/31/2004 17:28:18 |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 16:25:50 [Permalink]
|
Ah, yes I see. He supports micro-evolution but not macro-evolution (I should have read his previous posts a little more carefully).
JerryB stated:
"Macroevolution is the antithesis of this concept in that it states with any spontaneous speciation entropy will tend to decrease and matter/energy order:"
JerryB stated:
"Every biological process is not spontaneous, but speciations are. Complex macroevolution is where SLOT steps in. "
JerryB stated:
"Complex macroevolution states that through billions of speciations, all or at least most resulting in organisms more complex than the progenitor, homo sapiens were produced from a uni-celled critter."
Others have already posted replies to these assertions, but you have failed to address these. Could you please do that?
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 16:55:28 [Permalink]
|
Jerry, somewhere in that truly Hovindesque post you said something about a rift in science. I would know more. Please identify and describe this rift.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 17:23:24 [Permalink]
|
Kil:
quote:
Jerry, you need to understand where you are. Did you not think we would be somewhat (or less than somewhat) hostile to the idea of ID? A skeptic must remain open to new ideas, but demands for evidence are par and if they are not supplied, you will be called on it. They will be challenged if they are found lacking in any way. This goes for everyone. But Jerry, you came to us with the claim and it is incumbent upon you to support that claim. It frustrates us when you seem to dance around many of the calls for you to back up your assertions. That also goes for us and our assertions too. But frankly, the ID claim is yours. So you are on the hot seat.
I fully expect people to be hostile to concepts alien to their belief system and I actually enjoy being challenged on my assertions as this is how I format my personal belief system. If what I throw out walks, I know I'm onto something and I will work to refine it.
What I'm discovering in here is that it seems some people are not used to formal debate and want to attack the messenger and not the message. Yes, I'm an aggressive debater but there's a fine line I try not to cross and that line is to get personal. I must confess that sometimes I cannot resist lashing back so if I have done this, I apologize and we can move on.
Quite frankly, I do not understand what calls have been made for me to back up my claims that I have not responded to. It seems to me that I keep getting the same questions over and over that I have answered multiple times. But perhaps it is just me and I think I have answered them to everyone's satisfaction when I have not.
Therefore, I'm going to make a special attempt in this post to answer any questions I have not covered to the satisfaction of the forum members.
Let's start here:
quote:
I couldn't find anybody actually promoting the "secular humanist religion", so I assume this is another fundie strawman.
Looks like somebody's true colors are showing. Nice meltdown Mr. Science.
Now, I normally would just ignore this provocative post knowing that if I address it, it would just escalate into something not conducive to intellectual betterment. But lest I be accused further of not responding, I will respond.
I did not mean to imply that there is such a thing as secular humanist churches with white collared pastors and teams of evangelists going door to door proselytizing for converts.
But there comes a point in some philosophies where a line is crossed and religion is embraced. That line is when one begins to accept things on faith rather than substance. Faith can be defined as belief in something where there is no evidence to support it. I find this is quite common among secular humanists in everything from abiogenesis, to Darwinism to their seemingly universal belief that there is no God and that man is his own God. When I call secular humanism a religion, this is what I'm referring to.
Hawks:
I haven't gotten yet to the post I owe you, but I will before my day is out:
quote:
JERRY: So I went back and found thses quotes of yours:
"But I never said that SLOT prohibits evolution. I am an evolutionist."
"No, I suspect evolution is to blame for this."
"But I have never said that SLOT denies evolution."
HAWKS: Why are we then having this discussion?
I am an evolutionist as I fully accept the main-stream definition of it: change in the gene pool of a population over time. This is a fact of science and we see it in most populations, especially in areas such as bacterial resistance to antibiotics and the like.
ID fully accepts the tenets of evolution that is based on experimental evidence and rejects that which is based on something other than that. For example, it is logical to me that if an organism was designed wholly as an organism, then given enough time, that organism would evolve into an organism with reduced function. So see, I am an evolutionist in that I accept what I believe science supports within that field.
Finally, it is not evolution that SLOT prohibits because there is nothing in SLOT that would prevent change. It is when people espouse complex evolution, i.e., an amoeba morphs into a more complex whale over a billion or so speciation each, or at least most, being more complex than its progenitor that I bring up SLOT. SLOT says this is impossible.
Now I presume that this has been clarified.
This post seems not to be to me, therefore I will let others answer it.
********Jerry is no more than another fundie in the mold of Dembski, I think. He is quite a bit better spoken than most, but he's really come up with nothing new beyond the smoke screens.*******
If there are other question I have not cleared up, please post them at this time and I will be glad to.
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 17:29:57 [Permalink]
|
*******Jerry, somewhere in that truly Hovindesque post you said something about a rift in science. I would know more. Please identify and describe this rift.*******
That was poorly worded and has been edited to:
"Devoted Darwinists simply take it too far which is why we have this huge rift between this science and the public" |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 17:52:11 [Permalink]
|
Well, what problem could one possibly have in understanding these:
quote:
JerryB stated:
"Macroevolution is the antithesis of this concept in that it states with any spontaneous speciation entropy will tend to decrease and matter/energy order:"
From this post: Jerry: "The second law states that with any spontaneous reaction, entropy will tend to increase. If S is entropy and 1 and 2 are events, then the second law states as a tendency matter/energy will disorder:
S2 > S1
Macroevolution is the antithesis of this concept in that it states with any spontaneous speciation entropy will tend to decrease and matter/energy order:
S2 < S1"
This means that SLOT demands simplicity from complexity but macroevolution demands complexity from simplicity. One of these has to be wrong.
quote:
JerryB stated:
"Every biological process is not spontaneous, but speciations are. Complex macroevolution is where SLOT steps in. "
Clarify what it is you do not understand. Is it that you think that speciation is caused by someone or something and is not a result of random mutations, or that you do not understand that SLOT dictates a tendency of complexity -----> simplicity. Or could it be that you do not understand that some biological processes such as endothermic reactions in cellular respiration are non-spontaneous?
quote:
JerryB stated:
"Complex macroevolution states that through billions of speciations, all or at least most resulting in organisms more complex than the progenitor, homo sapiens were produced from a uni-celled critter."
Macroevolution is a concept that espouses common descent from a father organism or organisms. Many believe that the first self-sustaining organism was a uni-celled critter. Uni means one, therefore that would be a one-celled organism, say a bacterium.
From this one-celled organism, other more complex organisms such as lions, tigers and bears magically *poofed.*
A speciation is when one species turns into another species. |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 18:24:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Hey, if you want to make Jonathon Sarfati (Socratis) squeal like he was being sodomized by an echidna walking backward, go to TheologyWeb and reference TO. It's pretty amazing and highly amusing.
ROFL.
I'm so doing that.
Damn, I should remember not to drink anything while navigating these posts  |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 18:57:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
From this one-celled organism, other more complex organisms such as lions, tigers and bears magically *poofed.*
Don't you realize that every time you use expressions like "magically *poofed*" you are misrepresenting "common descent" and by doing so you alienate us. That's how you provoke, if not everyone, then at least me. By doing so, you shouldn't expect us/me to be very tolerant of you. The unfortunate thing is that it develops a deficit in good will, and the less likely I am to give you the benefit of a doubt.
What is you purpose for posting here?
To promote ID: You're not doing that well. Perhaps you should consider changing strategy?
You are the one who claims that new species *poofed* into existance. We are the ones claiming that there has been a gradual evolution from single celled organisms, through an increasing complexity, to us.
(edited some spelling) |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 10/31/2004 19:38:58 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 19:42:01 [Permalink]
|
Jerry wrote:quote:
That was poorly worded and has been edited to:
"Devoted Darwinists simply take it too far which is why we have this huge rift between this science and the public"
Actually, Jerry, as has been pointed out numerous times here and elsewhere, the "huge rift" in the United States is largely due to people deciding that evolution denies their god(s). Which is why the "Wedge Strategy" states,Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies... the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. (My emphasis pointing out where "theistic science" comes into play, as an understanding of nature is what science attempts.)
No, there is nothing in the Bible which contradicts evolution, except a literal reading of Genesis which clearly implies a 6,000-year-old Earth (giving evolution little time to operate) and a worldwide flood (giving evolution even less time). Fundamentalists don't just deny common descent - as you do - they deny the evidence from geology, cosmology, and other sciences which have found a 4.5 billion-year-old Earth and a 15 billion-year-old universe. Yet, they focus their wrath on evolutionary theories because they believe that evolution turns them into animals, and "frees" people from personal responsibility and morality.
But it just ain't so.
Jerry wrote:quote:
Now. Let's cut to the chase. I personally challenge you to a one on one debate in ID verses Darwinism. You are so far into this that if you refuse you will look like an idiot. Do you actually know any science? Or are you all uneducated bluster?
I know enough science to know that what you're arguing against isn't Darwinism, it's just common descent. Especially since you go out of your way to agree with "microevolution." Besides which, modern evolutionary science is no longer simply Darwinism. Darwin had no idea how heritable information was passed on, but we do know now.
In other words, I would look like an idiot to agree to defend Darwinism in a debate against you or anyone else.
Plus, I've seen some of your debates and other online discussions (and like it or not, I went looking for information on "complex macroevolution" - the discovery that you used to be a creationist was an unintended side-effect). And what I've primarily seen is discussions of SLOT, so a debate is unlikely to be ID versus common descent, it's more likely to be your personal version of SLOT versus everyone else's version. I would be an idiot to enter such a debate, since writing up your claims and publishing them in a reputable thermodynamics journal (without mention of ID or evolution) should win you a Nobel Prize on its own... if you're correct.
You're not actually arguing against Darwinism or common descent or even against the secular humanist orthodoxy, what you're really arguing against is SLOT as everyone else knows it. The proper place to have such discussions is with the chemists and physicists, in the peer-reviewed journals appropriate to the subject matter.
After all, a debate here on these forums means nothing, in the grand scheme of things. If you were to lose such a challenge, it wouldn't change a thing. And besides, before I agreed to any such debate, I would be forced to ask: "what would it take for you to admit that you'd lost the debate?" Without a concrete answer to such a question, we can't even begin to negotiate the ground rules. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 19:50:39 [Permalink]
|
******Now then Jerry, please explain to me exactly why blind cave fishes have rudimentary eyes if they were created as a whole and not evolving away from them.******
Because they are evolving away from them? That would be my guess.
quote:
And why does the electric eel, a creature capable of navigating by electrical pulses, have eyes. Seems silly, especally as it is blinded by electricity-induced cataracts at an early age.
Tons of quirks of nature running around, isn't there? It could be that the eel is evolving away from eyes and into another system of navigation. Could be that the eel needs eyes in its youth to better complete for food using redundant systems. It's anybody's guess as to why, I would presume.
quote:
It gets better; the surinam toad has no tongue and must cram it's prey into it's cavernous gullet with it's forelimbs. Whassup wid dat?
Why would this surprise you? Nature is very diverse in some respects and quite similar in others and the frog seems to do OK with this feeding system, does it not?
quote:
A fish's tail is a marvelous means of aquatic propulsion, yet the 1/2 ton pelagic sunfish has all but none. It swims by waggling it's dorsal and ventral fins. Did somebody forget something?
Now who could be prejudiced against this guy.
It does look like somebody forgot something. But this species seems to be doing just fine as a species. I tried to research it a little on the Web but few sites popped up on this guy.
Let me take this opportunity to point out to you how differently a Darwinist and an IDist think about nature. To me, this species seems evidence of design. What possible force in natural selection could be selecting for fish "without" tails? But if I look at this fish from the design aspect, I can see that this is a completely different design this seems to do very well for this species.
quote:
To revisit the human body, why do we have too many teeth for the size of our jaws and often have to have our wisdom teeth, which grow in at odd angles, yanked?
I don't have an answer for this one. Perhaps the mouth used to be bigger? Perhaps there was a change in diet? I don't think anyone really has an answer that can satisfy as a scientific one. It certainly does not suggest that one of my ancestors was an amoeba.
quote:
Why do non-venomous snakes have duvernoy's organ, and why are those marvelous venom glands degenerate in serpents such as pythons, that kill by constriction?
Actually snakes with duvernoy's organ are considered non-venomous only in classification. Some snakes of the class colubridae seem to fall into this classification:
"There is another group of snakes that has venomous members. That family is called colubridae, but not all of its members are venomous. In fact, most are not venomous and its members include the rat snakes and king snakes. Most of the venomous colubrids have rear fangs: enlarged teeth in the back of the mouth instead of the front. Instead of being hollow, these teeth are usually, though not always, grooved and instead of a full venom gland, they have a reduced, simpler organ called a Duvernoy's gland. The Duvernoy's gland still produces toxin, but it is not as advanced as a venom gland. Although rear-fanged snakes in other parts of the world can be deadly to humans, none in the U.S. are considered dangerous. In fact, most of these snakes are less dangerous than many non-venomous snakes. That is because the venom apparatus is there only to subdue the snakes prey (usually frogs, toad and lizards)."
As to the Python, perhaps that gland is being selected against because it is no longer needed?
http://www.coastalplainsreptiles.com/articles/Everyone/DangerousVsVenomous.htm
quote:
Why do snakes have two lungs and only use one, the other being degenerate?
Perhaps the lung is in a state of evolution? That would be my guess. What would be yours?
quote:
Why cannot naked mole rats control their body temperture as efficently as other mammals?
I don't know. As I've stated previously there is both diversity and similarity of organisms throughout nature. I'm wondering what it is that you think you have shown here. I've pointed out from the get-go that I'm anti-Darwinist, not anti-evolution. Do you think any of the stuff you listed in this post is evidence for Darwinism?
|
| Edited by - JerryB on 10/31/2004 19:54:40 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 20:25:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
*******Jerry, somewhere in that truly Hovindesque post you said something about a rift in science. I would know more. Please identify and describe this rift.*******
That was poorly worded and has been edited to:
"Devoted Darwinists simply take it too far which is why we have this huge rift between this science and the public"
Ok, and you are right. There is indeed a rift between science and the general public. But the reason is that science has poor PR. Scientists are simply too busy doing science to get into self-promotion beyond their individual research. This is not true for the Creationist and ID movements, who preach at the public on a regular basis.
Why do you constantly use the term 'Darwinist?' The ToE has long left the writings of Darwin, excellent for his day, far behind. You seem to make it sound like a religious sect, like 'Methodist.' To my knowledge, no one has started a Church of Darwin, although if there's any cash in it, I might.
I accept the ToE, but I have neither belief nor faith in it because it is entirely falsifiable. If you come up with that Devonian bunny, or the equivlent, and get it past peer review, I'll toss the theory and never look back. The only regrets I'd have would be that you didn't find it sooner.
Peer review. That's the sticky part in science. The Toumi skull found in Chad two or three years or so ago is, at last reading, still going through it and that review is all but bloody. Is Toumi a 7 million year old ape or a hominin, or is it evidence of an ancestor of both? I wonder if it will be resolved in my lifetime, especally if no more fossils of it are found.
Evolution can be observed working among species alive today. If you get a chance, look up the grasshopper mouse. It is a mouse that has become a carnivore. It will attack other mice even larger than it's self, snakes and lizards, and any arthropod it comes across including scorpions and bombadeer beetles (this last, it grabs the beetle and jams it's backside into the ground and holds it there while it eats the rest). It hunts in family packs and even howls to communicate. And it is as territorial as any wolf pack.
This little mouse is showing physical changes to suit it's unmouse-like way of life, notably it's dentation. It's insisors are long, narrow and very sharp, unlike the wide chisles in other mice. It kills with a bite to the neck.
Given a few tens of thousands of years, do you think this ravanous rodent, that is succeding in a new nitch will still be the same mouse? Or even a rodent at all?
Me, I don't know.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 20:46:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Don't you realize that every time you use expressions like "magically *poofed*" you are misrepresenting "common descent" and by doing so you alienate us. That's how you provoke, if not everyone, then at least me. By doing so, you shouldn't expect us/me to be very tolerant of you. The unfortunate thing is that it develops a deficit in good will, and the less likely I am to give you the benefit of a doubt.
That goes both way. I certainly do not go into a new forum with the intentions of provoking anyone. But note how many on here are still calling me a 'fundy' (which I am not), attempting to paint ID as revamped creationism, which it is not and that sort of thing. I would suppose it's a tit for tat sort of thing.
quote:
What is you purpose for posting here?
To promote ID: You're not doing that well. Perhaps you should consider changing strategy?
Probably wise advice that I would be remiss in not analyzing. Your point is noted.
quote:
You are the one who claims that new species *poofed* into existance. We are the ones claiming that there has been a gradual evolution from single celled organisms, through an increasing complexity, to us.
Now listen to you.  You are accusing me of what you just advised I not accuse others.
But let's look closely at this difference. Darwinism does have a proposed methodology of gradual evolution with little evidence to support it, in my opinion. But some seem to miss the point that Darwinism must have something to evolve before the process can begin. Therefore, although abiogenesis is not officially a tenet of Darwinism, one logically leads to the other.
No Darwinist I am aware of, from Stanley Miller to Richard Dawkins has ever proposed a credible scenario of abiogenesis being caused by chemical evolution. So this first organism would appear to be a *poof* to some.
Conversely, ID proposes no *poofs* at all.
The more we learn about the universe around us, the easier it becomes for any free-thinking person, regardless of religious beliefs, to accept and fully embrace intelligent design. And once realizing that intelligent design is not based on religious beliefs [I have previously pointed out that the atheist Tipler has fully admitted that the existence of a designer can be supported by physics] then metaphysics become a moot point and we can look directly at science.
When we do, we can begin to propose a methodology for this designer that ID detractors have accused us of being ignorant of so many times in the past. I don't believe we need be ignorant any longer as we can take what is known about design from those who specialize in design: molecular design engineers; and extrapolate what we have discovered in material design technique to the techniques of the designer of life.
In a recent post-graduate engineering course I ran across, I learned much about engineering methodology. If you want to brush up on your calculus [I'm doing so right now] you can study it here:
http://www.nd.edu/~ed/molecular_theory_notes.pdf
But what's important to intelligent design in this paper is that it gives us a schematic of overall molecular design methodology. Leading up to this event are the following words:
“2.3.1 Material Design
Statistical mechanics plays a central role within the hierarchy of approaches for first principle design of engineering materials. An alternative design process, utilizing a “sh |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2004 : 20:52:48 [Permalink]
|
I'm still waiting for you to explain how your logic isn't arguing FOR a supernatural creator.
You continue to ignore the request because you obviously cannot do anything but agree.
quote:
You state that it's impossible for CSI to occur randomly in nature.
You state that CSI "must" be designed.
Therefore, you state that no designer can naturally occur.
Therefore, you state that the designer is of supernatural origin
You damn well know that ID is nothing more than a pathetic fundamentalist attempt to argue for a creator.
--------------
Debate you, ID vs Darwinism....?
Well, why the hell do you think anyone here would desire to take up one of your imaginary concepts and defend it against one of your other imaginary concepts?
Why would any one of us desire to take your imaginary straw-man and argue for it?
You have a list of imaginary concepts in this thread, as if you are trying to dictate the terms of BOTH sides of the conversation..... which is the primary reason you have encountered hostility here. You keep insisting that the position we hold is that of defending your retarded straw-men, despite being told otherwise many times.
GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD:
Darwinism is your concept. It's a word that ONLY creationists use when talking about ToE, and it's nothing but a strawman. You CANNOT refute the massive ammount of evidence that supports ToE unless you distort it into your pathetic little idea that you rename "darwinism".
There can be no debate unless definitions are agreed to in advance. Clearly you hold to creationist ideas, and cling to them with an amazing zealotry. It's unlikely that definitions can be agreed upon between you and any rational human.
You INSIST, stupidly I add, that somehow the second law of thermodynamics invalidates ToE. (or your strawman "darwinism"). You totally ignore that the earth, and ALL living organisms are not closed nor isolated systems. This is true for both classic thermodynamics (when talking about heat/energy/matter) AND when talking about information. New information enters the genome ALL THE FREAKIN TIME, in the form of beneficial/harmfull mutations (you assume, without evidence, that mutations are an increase in entropy) and in the form of ERV's. (to name just TWO ways new information enters the genetic code of living organisms). You assume, without evidence, that the tendency toward increased entropy automatically applies to living organisms and, once again with ZERO evidence, you claim that SLOT IS THE CAUSE OF AGING IN LIVING ORGANISMS!
You come in here advocating a FAKE SCIENCE created by religious extremists (a "science" that is intended to drive a religious political agenda), act like a complete prick, fail to produce any evidence to support your claims, kill a bunch of straw-men of your own creation, refuse to address the FACT that your argument is advocating a supernatural designer, pretend that your being "trolled" (whatever the fuck THAT means, as you are clearly the troll here), indulge in a spate of namecalling of your own (the same behavior that you accuse others of being juvenile when they use it), make one unsupported assertion after another, demonstrate that you clearly fail to comprehend basic probability, demonstrate that you clearly fail to comprehend basic thermodynamics, demonstrate that you clearly do not understand basic logic, AND (in an oddly G.W. Bush like way) REFUSE TO ADMIT (OR EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE) YOUR ERROR WHEN IT'S CLEARLY POINTED OUT TO YOU.
And you wonder why you generate hostility....
So, lets hear it man..... just go to the top of this post and tell me how you are NOT arguing for a supernatural designer.
|
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 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
