|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 11/01/2004 : 18:45:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
quote:
I am. What the hell are we talking about? Do you yourself know?
LOL....There's some intellectual honesty. Let's see if I can explain this to you. Intelligent design is a science that employs certain techniques to determine design in artifacts and systems. That's it; and it doesn't get anymore complicated that that.
Archeology is another science that uses design techniques because often with an archeological dig it becomes necessary to determine if a find is an intentional (intelligent) design or simply exists due to some natural process.
Once design is detected our job is done and we can then classify the artifact or system as designed or produced by nature. You seem to think that once design is detected we can go ahead and identify who the designer was.
You further seem to think that I believe the designer to be the Christian God of the Bible. I do not. I would have no Idea what did the designing because I have no scientific evidence with which to identify the designer. Period. So every time you bring up the term designer, my standard answer will be, I don't know who the designer is, I don't claim any designers or have knowledge of any other than my Aunt Norma who is an interior designer. Well, I guess I do know Steve Perryman over at ARN who is a design engineer by profession, but that would be about it.
quote:
By the way, the stats quoted sound about right over all. However, with those students in the biological sciences, the numbers will likely be considerably different.
Maybe. But I can state that I was a biology minor and I couldn't buy it even though I had little religious beliefs at that time in my life.
quote:
Consider how many vermiform endoparasites there are. Round worm, tape worm, screw worm, bots and many more that infest both livestock and people. To a person doing some butchering in earlier times, how these came to be was a mystery. Also, the eggs of the common bluebottle fly are very difficult to see if you don't know what you're looking for. A carcass might just be lying there looking and smellibg a bit unpleasant one day, and the next be crawling with tiny but growing maggots. Where did they come from? Why they just popped up spontaniously from the foul humours, of course. Through experimentation, Pastur put these myths to rest.
Neither he nor anyone else has debunked modern, abiogenesis thought and no one will until the research has come up with something definitive, pro or con.
The research has come in, via the experiments of: Urey, Stanley Miller, the Japanese, Nagaoka experiments, Robertson and Miller and others. We know that flies come from flies, pigs from pigs and children from parents.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but thus far you have proven nothing nor debunked anything at all.
Bottom line: you're blowing smoke, Jerry. You claim a designer; produce it. "I don't know what it could be maybe anything!" ain't hittin' on shit.
 |
"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 - 11/01/2004 : 19:04:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I suggest that it is because you don't understand logic. I think I can safely say that every participant in this thread thus far, but you, understands what Dave is saying.
You've surveyed all of them, have you? And it is me that doesn't understand logic? But since you understand this, then why don't you explain to the forum what *poofs* are involved when GM designs and manufactures a new line of automobiles. I wasn't aware that auto parts *poof* themselves from an ether.
quote:
Well then, give us sources? Where are they?
Give you sources for what, that abiogenesis did not happen? Very doubtful that anyone would have been around to bear witness to an event that did not happen. 
quote:
How disingenuous of you. We both know that Pasteur didn't. He couldn't have told the difference between an thermoacidophilis and a retrovirus if they both bit him in the ass.
Why would one need to know that to understand living things do not morph out of dead things? Do you know of any sheep that originated out of rocks?
quote:
Bullshit! Miller did no such thing. This is also a classic fanatical creationist misinformation/misrepresentation. Miller did the experiment to verify that amino acids could form from what was believed to be pre-biotic earth environmental conditions.
And you would know this....um....how? When one constructs an enclosed Pyrex system filled with the chemicals believed to comprise the primitive earth and then bombards those chemical with simulations of lightning, what is you think they are attempting to show? He was obviously trying to recreate early conditions to determine if abiogenesis is a credible theory. The experiment shows it not be. Please don't attempt to twist the results.
quote:
Who in their right mind would waste money on ID biology research on such shaky grounds as you present here?
I don't know. But I would like to meet these suckers since there is no such thing as ID biology and therefore nothing to research. Remember the words of PT. Barnum. There is one born every minute.
quote:
Abiogenesis is the science covering the area of how inanimate matter started self-replicate and become living. Evolution (as in biological evolution) in the science of how life have diversified, from the first procaryotes to Man. What part of this do you not understand? It wasn't until the end of the last century mankind even had the equipment to study Abiogenesis. Your continuing use of the word Darwinism even though you know it's an outdated term just reinforce the impression that you have a religious creationist background. You continue using old creationist fallacies, even though you should know better had you been a sincere student of science.
Correct. Now explain to me how Darwinism can evolve a critter that does not exist. How could Darwinism have possibly have happened if abiogenesis did not? I've explained my use of the word Darwinism and I don't believe you've managed yet show even one of my assertions as fallacy. Just because you believe they are, doesn't mean they are.
quote:
We do not yet have the whole picture.
If you were truly a scientist, you'd know that "we don't know" is a valid answer. People are researching this, and may one day find the answer. ID don't answer how the universe came to exist either, does it?
Yes, ID maintains that the only possible way the universe could have been conceived is by the intervention of a designer from outside this universe. There is no credible explanation you can give using any other scenario, is there?
quote:
This only shows your lack of understanding of the current Big Bang theories.
Ya know, I'm having a bit of difficulty in addressing your responses because you keep coming back with an 'is too' or an 'is not' or a 'you don't understand this' rather than an argument, a more credible explanation or helping me to understand it. What is it I don't understand about this?
quote:
The breach of logic is yours. And it builds on classic religious creationist thinking that there has to be an explanation and a purpose to the Big Bang, and that it should be provided presently.
Actually the philosophy of teleology goes back the great philosophers of the ancient halls of Greece. I hardly think those guys were Christian creationists.
quote:
I understand that these are personal questions, but I pose them in hope of getting some insight in your mindset, and where you're coming from, and I want the simplest possible answer: Yes/No
Do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal saviour?
Have you, during a period of time, in the past considered yourself Christian?
Or belonging to another faith?
Not only are they personal questions, they are irrelevant questions. If I answer no will you then accept the tenets you are having some trouble refuting?
Conversely, if I answer yes, what will that mean to you, that anything I research or converse in science is therefore invalid? If you think the latter, then how do you justify that most of the science used in the laboratory today was brought to you courtesy of avid believers in Jesus Christ such as Newton, Faraday, Boyle and Kelvin? |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2004 : 19:41:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
. . . Second, they have determined that many of these retro viruses are site specific, but not that they are host specific. In fact they openly admit that some of these ERVs are NOT host specific: "Cross-hybridization and PCR studies consistently reveal that most HERV families are also found in other primates, including apes and Old World monkeys"
But even though I don't believe they are ignorant, I do believe they drew a false conclusion from the research: "Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place."
Why? They have openly stated as quoted above that these integration events took place somewhere between 5 and 50 million years ago, so they have no way of knowing when the integration event occurred. And further, they have no idea of how it occurred.
Suppose that a non-host specific virus comes on planet earth similar to HIV, my ancestors get infected, chimps get infected, gibbons become infected and baboons get infected. That virus may leave insertions at the same places on the same chromosomes because some are site specific. Then all species will pass the same insertion on down the lineage.
Hi, Jerry. This appears to be an incorrect reading of how this works. According to your reading, a virus infects, say, chimps, gibbons, and baboons. These infections leave a DNA "scar," and these animals pass down this "scar" to their offspring chimps, gibbons, and baboons. Thus, with your logic they aren't related; rather, it's because they're similar that later ancestors will have "scars" at the same points.
What's missing? First, from my understanding, these "scars" show up in all samples of a species. Thus, you have to assume that only animals who a) got infected, and b) had that infection manifest itself in the form of a DNA "scar," or you posit that they all came from an earlier common ancestor.
And when all humans and all chimps share the same DNA retrovirus "scar," it seems more likely that they share a common ancestor, and not that they all happen to be the children of animals who all happen to been infected and all happen to have left DNA "scars" behind.
And also, when the authers stress more than once that "the proviruses are derived from two independent integration events (xenology)," and that
quote:
this possibility would require two nearly identical viruses (differing by no more than 11 substitutions within the LTRs) to integrate into precisely the same nucleotide position in two different lineages-- a highly unlikely possibility. A similarly unlikely variation on this possibility is independent integrations into very similar cellular target sequences.
I have to question in general your assertion that all these DNA "scars" are as common as you think. The impression I get is that it's rare enough that simply positing that two distinct species got them in the exact same spot and manifest themselves in the exact same way is not as likely a solution as you assert.
quote:
Right. But the flagellum I posted was also designed for a function, as a biological trolling motor. In fact, they are very similar motors and I do a comparison study between a flagellum and a trolling motor you might want to read when you get the time here.
Had trouble finding the exact post, but I'll keep looking. But I'm curious that you use "designed" in discussing the flagellum. Doesn't that betray the same bias you accuse the above authors of having? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2004 : 20:07:00 [Permalink]
|
By the way, there's another calculation problem somewhere. Jerry offers a calculation which says that there have been 7.9x1015 seconds since the Big Bang. He also asserts that Dembski says that "10^25 is more than ten million times the age of our Milky Way galaxy in seconds." So, divide the latter figure by ten million to get the approximate age of the Milky Way, and I find that 1018 is still more than 100 times longer than the calculated age of the universe. How much "more" did Dembski mean by "more than ten million times?" A billion times?
Oh, I see what the real problem is: In this figure (supplied by Jerry earlier):
It claims that there are 60 seconds in one hour. That should be 3,600, of course. Step-by-step (so others can easily verify) what do we get?-> 60 (seconds per minute)
x 60 (minutes per hour)
-------------------
= 3600 (seconds per hour)
x 24 (hours per day)
-------------------
= 86400 (seconds per day)
x 365 (days per year)
-------------------
= 31536000 (seconds per year)
x 15000000000 (15 billion years)
-------------------
=473040000000000000 (seconds in 15 billion years) Or about 4.73x1017 seconds, not 7.9x1015.
Dembski still appears to be claiming that the Milky Way is older than the universe, but the error is much less egregious now. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2004 : 20:23:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Posted by Cuneiformist:
I've been thinking about this. If Jerry accepts this reasoning-- that math "proves" that abiogenesis is impossible, etc., then he must accept that the designer is supernatural. Think about it-- whether it's my uncle Al or an alien from the planet Xxz'ygaras, they're all part of the natural world. And, according to Jerry, in nature, it is impossible for life to form via natural means. Thus, for Jerry, neither Al nor the alien from Xxz'ygaras could have "designed" life on earth, as it is impossible for them to have arisen. Or, to be fair, they could have created life on earth but earlier they themselves were created by a supernatural being-- at some point, according to Jerry's own logic, life in this universe must have sprung via supernatural powers!
Dr. Mab said it, I've been saying it for days, and now Cuneiformist hs said it.
The only response from Jerry is something about his favorite shirt and a hairdryer. He has deliberately ignored every post concerning his assertion that the only possible designer is a supernatural one.
The only conclusion left is that preaching a religious-creationist point of view is Jerry's intent, and that his ignoring this everytime it's brought up (usually by attempting to divert the subject) is proof that he's willing to openly lie to preach his religionist philosophy.
|
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 - 11/01/2004 : 20:50:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
Now explain to me how Darwinism can evolve a critter that does not exist. How could Darwinism have possibly have happened if abiogenesis did not?
One possibility: God created a single-celled organsim on a primordial earth, then washed his hands of the whole affair and let evolution do the rest.
That is but one scenario, but it fulfills the requirements needed to illustrate the point that the two theories are entirely independent. Any further attempt on your part to imply that evolution is dependent upon abiogenesis or vice versa will be discarded as an already addressed fallacy and will be considered an act of dishonesty.
|
"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 11/01/2004 20:51:13 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2004 : 21:04:46 [Permalink]
|
Oh, and by the way, Jerry has asserted, a couple/few times,quote:
There is no overall theory of ID just as there isn't with most sciences. For example you would stammer a bit if I demanded you give me the theory of anesthesiology or the theory of chemistry.
Now, I may not know what anesthesiology theory is, but I'm pretty sure it exists:Comparative anesthesiology theory...
- A Guide to the Research Institutions of Hokkaido University And:The Division is also responsible for the education and training of Anesthesiology residents and medical students in obstetric anesthesiology theory and practice.
- Richard M. Smiley's Faculty Profile And:Students develop and implement practical clinical applications of anesthesiology theory.
- Course 2791 of the Pitt University School of Nursing Same with chemistry:The theory of Chemistry is taught as much as possible using hands-on experience of the substances and processes involved.
- Chemistry at Malvern [college] Most of us here could probably quote the theory of evolution quite readily, and also the theory of common descent. And perhaps the theories of gravity, electrons, and some others. Theories in science are actually ubiquitous, since theories are what make predictions, and without falsifiable predictions, there is no science.
So how does ID have no theory, yet make falsifiable predictions? This question is quite puzzling. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2004 : 21:30:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Dr. Mab said it, I've been saying it for days, and now Cuneiformist hs said it.
The only response from Jerry is something about his favorite shirt and a hairdryer. He has deliberately ignored every post concerning his assertion that the only possible designer is a supernatural one.
The only conclusion left is that preaching a religious-creationist point of view is Jerry's intent, and that his ignoring this everytime it's brought up (usually by attempting to divert the subject) is proof that he's willing to openly lie to preach his religionist philosophy.
Right (and sorry I missed it, Dude-- I'm slow when it comes to math). That, or (as I seem to recall but cannot place) we were designed by a being not from this universe. Whatever that means. Either way, the designer cannot he his uncle or some space traveller, which he's thrown out as an (albeit unlikely) possibility. Which seems to be a bit dishonest-- I mean, if you argue that life on earth (and ostensibly in the universe) cannot have formed on its own, then when suggesting who or what the designer is or was for life on earth (and ostensibly in the universe), you should stick to saying that it has to be some sort of supernatural or extra-universal force or being. At least, that's what makes sense to me. Tossing out something like "an astronaut" suggests that it could have been a being native to this universe, but that's (according to Jerry) impossible.
(Edited to add:
Just so we're clear, on page 14 of this thread, Jerry notes that
quote:
ID embraces no particular designer and espouses that it has no idea who/what the designer was/is. The designer could have been a deity, an astronaut, a previously existing race of highly intelligent earth creatures or even seeded on earth by meteorites as the panspermian/atheist side of ID espouses. We would have no way of knowing because we have discovered no evidence to point us in a given direction.
Again-- this is dishonest, as Jerry himself has stressed that it is mathmatically impossible for something as complex as life to form on its own in this universe. Thus, it cannot be "an astronaut, a previously existing race of highly intelligent earth creatures or even seeded on earth by meteorites," as those are all part of this universe and unable to exist without supernatural or exptra-universal help.) |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 11/01/2004 21:38:24 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2004 : 21:39:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Dr. Mab said it, I've been saying it for days, and now Cuneiformist hs said it.
The only response from Jerry is something about his favorite shirt and a hairdryer. He has deliberately ignored every post concerning his assertion that the only possible designer is a supernatural one.
The only conclusion left is that preaching a religious-creationist point of view is Jerry's intent, and that his ignoring this everytime it's brought up (usually by attempting to divert the subject) is proof that he's willing to openly lie to preach his religionist philosophy.
Right (and sorry I missed it, Dude-- I'm slow when it comes to math). That, or (as I seem to recall but cannot place) we were designed by a being not from this universe. Whatever that means. Either way, the designer cannot he his uncle or some space traveller, which he's thrown out as an (albeit unlikely) possibility. Which seems to be a bit dishonest-- I mean, if you argue that life on earth (and ostensibly in the universe) cannot have formed on its own, then when suggesting who or what the designer is or was for life on earth (and ostensibly in the universe), you should stick to saying that it has to be some sort of supernatural or extra-universal force or being. At least, that's what makes sense to me. Tossing out something like "an astronaut" suggests that it could have been a being native to this universe, but that's (according to Jerry) impossible.
When I questioned Jerry on this subject, he specified that he was only speaking of known life on this planet:
No, it [irreducible complexity] would not necessarily include life outside of life on earth. We have no evidence to support that life on other planets would be constructed exactly as we are. Perhaps other life-forms are anaerobic and constructed on some sort of methane breathing system with no proteins at all. We just don't know and therefore you have no logical basis to draw this conclusion.
Nor do we know that astronauts cannot come from other universes or even different dimensions in this universe.
|
"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 11/01/2004 21:41:03 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2004 : 21:54:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
When I questioned Jerry on this subject, he specified that he was only speaking of known life on this planet:
No, it [irreducible complexity] would not necessarily include life outside of life on earth. We have no evidence to support that life on other planets would be constructed exactly as we are. Perhaps other life-forms are anaerobic and constructed on some sort of methane breathing system with no proteins at all. We just don't know and therefore you have no logical basis to draw this conclusion.
Nor do we know that astronauts cannot come from other universes or even different dimensions in this universe.
Right, H. (can I call you 'H.'?), but the point is, of course, that if things without CSI are incapable of naturally creating CSI, then it doesn't matter if the "designer" is anaerobic or methane-based or has no proteins. CSI doesn't depend on proteins or breathing aparati or oxygen use, as it is about raw information. Jerry's suggestion that the designer's form might make a difference is disingenuous, at best.
Is a creature which doesn't have CSI (500 bits of information, according to Jerry) capable of "design" in any way? "Design," after all, is itself a highly complex behaviour, and probably takes much more than 500 bits simply to define, much less execute. Heck, the document on material design Jerry linked to, earlier, had about 191 pages, if I remember correctly. At an average of 8,192 bits of information per page, that's well over 3,000 times the lower limit for CSI - and that's just one type of "design" (and a form of design which, given its limited purview, is itself incapable of generating intelligent life).
[Edited to correct noun-verb disagreement in one spot - Dave W.] |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2004 : 22:04:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
When I questioned Jerry on this subject, he specified that he was only speaking of known life on this planet:
No, it [irreducible complexity] would not necessarily include life outside of life on earth. We have no evidence to support that life on other planets would be constructed exactly as we are. Perhaps other life-forms are anaerobic and constructed on some sort of methane breathing system with no proteins at all. We just don't know and therefore you have no logical basis to draw this conclusion.
Nor do we know that astronauts cannot come from other universes or even different dimensions in this universe.
Right, HH, but on page 6 of this thread, Jerry says that "given this universal probability bound, anything with a probability less than 10^–150 (Also interpreted in the positive as 1 chance in 10^150) can be safely dismissed as too unlikely to ever happen in reality given any credible length of time," adding that "the simplest organism has many times this amount of specified complexity showing it to be designed."
I'm assuming here that he's talking about our universe, and not just life on earth. But perhaps I've misunderstood... |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2004 : 22:24:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
That's one of the "poofs" I'm talking about. You are claiming that SLOT defines a boundary which mutation plus selection cannot overcome, and so your version of the evidence claims that large changes in species just "poofed" into existence with the aid of a designer who left no unambiguous evidence of its presence behind.
There are no poofs in the methodology of ID. I have already posted that ID embraces the same quantum mechanics as does molecular design engineers. I posted the charts for you and you read 'em. The only poofs that exist here are in abiogenesis, I'm afraid.
quote:
All you spoke of was a huge rift in the public. The DI is part of the public. Their reason for promoting ID is entirely religious.
OK.....and....therefore..................................what?
quote:
There's no evidence that SLOT applies at all on the planet Frlintpip, either, so I suppose that belief in SLOT being a universal law is a matter of faith, as well.
The point is that all sciences, maths and logics depend on unprovable assumtions. The basic assumption underlying every field of science is that there exists an objective reality (in other words, that I'm not dreaming all of this, or that we're not trapped in some Maxtrix-like computer simulation). This cannot be proven.
Besides which, I believe there are very few "strict materialists" in the world, meaning there are very few people who, when faced with overwhelming evidence of the metaphysical, won't accept it on purely philosophical grounds. Scientists are largely materialists in that they don't look for supernatural explanations, but that's a far cry from having "faith" in materialism like a fundamentalist has faith in God.
You say some of the silliest things from time to time, Dave. Do you understand what a law of physics is? The laws of physics are universal:
'From the smallest particle to the largest galaxy, the universe is a place that follows rules. These rules are described by the laws of physics. Before we can make a serious attempt to understand the universe around us, we must first examine the everyday world we live in with the hope of illuminating some of those rules. This has traditionally been the job of the physicists, whilst the job of charting and cataloguing the heavens has fallen to the astronomers. With the growing realisation that the laws of physics should apply to the entire universe and not just here on Earth, a new type of scientist has emerged; the astrophysicist.'
http://www.herts.ac.uk/astro_ub/a01_ub.html
So, where do you get this: "The point is that all sciences, maths and logics depend on unprovable assumtions." Back this up with some references, please, as it simply is not true.
Finally materialism is a belief--a philosophy--a religion in that it is based on faith where there is no evidence to support the belief:
Materialist: "The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena."
Is there universal evidence to support this?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=materialist
quote:
This misses the point entirely. Your evidence that only 10% of college graduates fully accept evolution didn't question anyone about ID.
Don't you reckon this is good since the study was strictly about evolution and had not a thing to do with ID?
quote:
It shows that nearly 33% of them reject evolution on purely religious grounds, and not because evolution fails as a science. That 33% also rejects the cosmological position that the universe has existed for 15 billion years.
The poll says nothing like this that I posted, The figure 33% was never mentioned in it. Nearly a third is an estimate and not a statistical fact like a percentage. Finally you are simply making up facts not stated in the survey: "33% also rejects the cosmological position that the universe has existed for 15 billion years." is not said anywhere in the text. You are trying to get us to swallow that a third of college graduates are YECs? Well where on earth were these guys hiding when I was in school?
quote:
I believe all of the above to be wrong, after having read some of your debates - specifically with Pixie. I have yet to see you present a strong case that both microevolution and macroevolution don't involve SLOT violations while common descent ("complex macroevolution") does. All I've seen you do is assert this idea, while failing to support it directly.
Did you enjoy getting to see a PhD level thermodynamicist secular humanist research scientist get his butt whipped by a dumb IDist in his own field?
In fact, I specifically support that concept by showing the exact degradation of the human genome and then calculating that degradation mathematically showing entropy increasing in the human genome rather than decreasing as complex macroevolution would require.
quote:
What is it about large changes in genes which violates SLOT while smaller changes in genes do not?
I have repeatedly stated that SLOT is a tendency against complex change not just change. And if you thank that macroevolution is just a little bigger change than microevolution, you need to learn what the words mean. Macroevolution = speciation.
quote:
Please support the idea that entropy necessarily decreases in the entire system as a result of many genetic mutations and selections (which is what common descent tells us), while the systemic entropy remains the same or rises with smaller amount of genetic change. Before doing so, please precisely define which sort of entropy you'll be talking about, and cite references which show that it is also bound specifically by the SLOT.
The question is largely nonsensical. For example, you will have to define systemic entropy and explain to me how you think it relates to genetics. May I get a link to that relationship so I can understand what you are asking?
quote:
To detect such things, however, ID appears to rely upon discontinuities, or "poofs." You say that it isn't possible to find a homochiral mix of amino acids in nature, so |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2004 : 22:53:39 [Permalink]
|
I'll address the rest of your latest response to me tomorrow, Jerry, but I'll respond to this now:quote:
The laws of physics did come into existence in this universe when the universe was created but you didn't really answer anything. Let's try it this way:
1.) What natural process can cause matter/energy to produce itself from a void?
2.) A true void is simply nothingness. It does not contain matter and therefore can never explode until matter/energy is somehow created in that space to be utilized as explosive mass. No mass--no matter--no explosion--end of discussion. So where did this matter/energy come from for this explosion to happen and how did matter/energy get into something before that something even exists?
Both questions assume that conditions "before" the Big Bang were something like they are now - with "mass," "energy," "natural processes" and "void" all meaning the same thing across the singularity - but that is an invalid assumption because it is untestable, as you well know.
Your original question has the same problem - the assumption that conditions at (or "before") the Big Bang event were something like they are now. With such an invalid assumption, the question is scientifically unanswerable, as you well know. Demanding that I give you an answer is illogical.
You proclaim to deal in nothing but science, but then ask non-scientific questions like the above.
Oh, by the way:quote:
Sites, references, please. Thus far you are just offering hollow words.
I'm in the process of working on a list of the assertions that you've made that you've never supported, just in this thread (I'm up to page nine). I'll be glad to reference my facts, just so long as you promise to do the same. Otherwise, this will never progress beyond "hollow words" versus "hollow words," and all of our collective time will be wasted. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2004 : 23:03:46 [Permalink]
|
This is getting tiresome...
I think I'll put on a broken record on my turntable, and read Kil's and William F. Fechter's e-mail exchange about Paradigm Paralysis instead of writing in this thread. It seems more productive somehow.
|
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. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2004 : 23:31:13 [Permalink]
|
hahahaha! He's quoting one of Aquinas' arguments (for the existance of god) in support of ID, that's awesome.
quote:
1) Nothing cannot cause something.
2) Nothing physical can cause itself, for it would first have to exist in order to create itself.
3) Anything with a beginning must have a beginner.
And you claim that life requires "CSI", and that "CSI" cannot occur randomly, only be designed.
The only possibly conclusion, and St. Thomas would agree with you, is the only possibly designer is a supernatural one.
Thank you for admitting that you are 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
