Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 A disturbing trend, 'er no?
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 17

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13457 Posts

Posted - 02/09/2012 :  15:36:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by jamalrapper

Kil wrote

Kenneth Miller:
...The very existence of the Type III Secretory System shows that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. It also demonstrates, more generally, that the claim of "irreducible complexity" is scientifically meaningless, constructed as it is upon the flimsiest of foundations – the assertion that because science has not yet found selectable functions for the components of a certain structure, it never will. In the final analysis, as the claims of intelligent design fall by the wayside, its advocates are left with a single, remaining tool with which to battle against the rising tide of scientific evidence. That tool may be effective in some circles, of course, but the scientific community will be quick to recognize it for what it really is – the classic argument from ignorance, dressed up in the shiny cloth of biochemistry and information theory...


Irreducible Complexity? The Bacterial Flagellum




Dr Behe quite easily dismisses both John McDonald and Kenneth Miller.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RukdzIRqhE

http://www.discovery.org/a/3718


Oh brother. Not really.

Look. I can take parts out of a mousetrap and use it as a tie clip. Do you get what I'm saying here? It's not necessary from an evolutionary standpoint for something like the flagellum or the eye, to function as either when parts are missing. All they would have had to do is have some function, or as a mutation, not be detrimental to the organism. So the whole mouse trap analogy fails. And because Behe doesn't think so or because the DI doesn't think so is of little importance to those who do science.

Behe even admitted on the stand that the definition of science would have to change were we to accept ID because it isn't science. And again, not a single thing they have pointed to as irreducibly complex is irreducibly complex. Every thing they have pointed to can be explained by evolution, with no need for a designer. ID is smoke and mirrors for the scientifically illiterate. It's nothing but creationism dressed up with sciencey sounding terminology to fool people like you.


Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13457 Posts

Posted - 02/09/2012 :  16:42:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
c0nc0rdance on ID Creationism and Bacterial Chemotaxis

Intelligent Design movement founder admits its not science.

I could get to meatier stuff. But what the heck? jamalrapper. How about if you explain in your own words why it is you think ID is:

1. Science

and

2. Why do you think evolution as it's being taught in science classrooms is "skullduggery?"

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

jamalrapper
Sockpuppet

213 Posts

Posted - 02/10/2012 :  09:48:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send jamalrapper a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Kil wrote
So the whole mouse trap analogy fails.

The mouse trap analogy was used by John McDonald. So you agree it was a bad analogy. Evolution does not create over complex structures when simple ones suffice.

Darwinism predates molecular biology or even a rudimentary understanding of genetics. It served well explaining in over generalized concepts "adaptive evolutionary processes" but was very limited in knowledge of the true complexities of organism.

Studies stemming from a few odd deformed fossils and excursions to a island retreat to later expound a non fiction comparative study of "the origin of species" would hardly be considered scientific today.
Darwinism/evolution taught as science in our schools is just that much more preposterous.

There is a science behind Intelligent design. http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/832
Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/10/2012 09:53:15
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13457 Posts

Posted - 02/10/2012 :  10:37:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
jamalrappper:
So you agree it was a bad analogy.

It's a terrible analogy. But it was an IDer who came up with it.
jamalrappper:
Evolution does not create over complex structures when simple ones suffice.

Evolution doesn't "create" in the way you are thinking about it. Evolution doesn't care. Evolution doesn't think. The process is blind. If a complex structure happens, it happens because the pieces for it were already working, or once worked as something else.
jamalrapper:
Darwinism predates molecular biology or even a rudimentary understanding of genetics. It served well explaining in over generalized concepts "adaptive evolutionary processes" but was very limited in knowledge of the true complexities of organism.

Molecular biology supports the evolution model. It has only added to the support for evolution.
jamalrapper:
Studies stemming from a few odd deformed fossils and excursions to a island retreat to later expound a non fiction comparative study of "the origin of species" would hardly be considered scientific today.

Deformed fossils? All of them? Come on! And yes, Darwins insight took place 150 years ago. It's still scientific. There has been a lot of advances in evolutionary biology since then, all of which supports evolution. Building on a theory is how science works. Origin holds up nicely, even today. But there is much that Darwin didn't know. His predictions have been supported by things like molecular biology and genetics and geology and so on. Natural Selection is still considered the main driver of evolution. Darwin had it right. And 150 years of trying to show how he was wrong has not done that.
jamalrapper:
Darwinism/evolution taught as science in our schools is just that much more preposterous.

Darwin plus everything since Darwin that supports evolution is what is taught. It has withstood every attack on it. And that was by real scientists. Not the silly creationists like those at the Discovery Institute who haven't done the science to support their hypothesis. Did you even watch the videos I posted? Do you get all your info from creationists? If that's the case, you need an education before you start casting stones at evidence based science being thrown by pseudo-scientists with the agenda of trying to force religion into science classrooms. We all know what the DI thinks. We also know that they are dishonest. If you actually understood this stuff, you would understand what it is they are trying to do. And it's not science. AGAIN, nothing they have proposed has passed peer review, and every biological structure they have proposed as being irreducible has been debunked.




Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 02/10/2012 :  12:19:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I cannot help but notice that this is becoming very like a conversation between Ricky Gervais and Karl Pilkington.

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page

jamalrapper
Sockpuppet

213 Posts

Posted - 02/10/2012 :  16:41:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send jamalrapper a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Many peer reviewed publications have been discarded as junk science.

Kil wrote
Evolution doesn't "create" in the way you are thinking about it. Evolution doesn't care. Evolution doesn't think. The process is blind. If a complex structure happens, it happens because the pieces for it were already working, or once worked as something else.


You appear to be stumbling on Dawkins explanation The blind Watchmaker.
Dawkins deals with the paradox of the human eye insisting natural selection can explain the complex adaptations of organisms. This blind evolutionary process he alludes to where development of complexity is a result of pure randomness, coupled with non-random cumulative selection.
We have to accept his cumulative selection to get started....
But it has been argued
Cumulative selection can manufacture complexity while single-step selection cannot. But cumulative selection cannot work unless there is some minimal machinery of replication and replicator power, and the only machinery of replication that we know seems too complicated to have come into existence by means of anything less than many generations of cumulative selection!

That Dawkins never actually saw the process (development of the eye) nor did he fully understand its evolutionary process. His blind summations should be taken literally.
Darwin on the other hand had a limited dim view of common descent and quite possibly confused it with the spontaneous abandonment of arboreal adaptation, resulting in the the several gaps we see in his theory.
One has to wonder how much the ability of early tool use led Dawkins to postulate the blind watchmaker were early tool using humans. Lacking the knowledge or sophistication but through random choice developed the complex mechanism of a watch but was conceptually blind to its design or finality.
Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/10/2012 17:23:26
Go to Top of Page

jamalrapper
Sockpuppet

213 Posts

Posted - 02/10/2012 :  17:34:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send jamalrapper a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by HalfMooner

Originally posted by jamalrapper

Originally posted by Ebone4rock

The creation/evolution debate has hit my area.

I have mixed feeling about it. On one hand I hate the fact that the creationists are getting airtime. On the other hand I think that if they keep getting smacked down publicly it might get something through their skulls.

What do you think?


You should have mixed feelings. The creationist are getting more airtime because they are smacking down the skullduggery passed off as science in our schools.

" If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
Welcome to SFN, jamalrapper.

No, actually. Didn't you read the links? The Creos just got their asses handed to them by that school board. Along with a copy of the Constitution's Establishment Clause. Science wins again over attempts to impose private faith mythology in taxpayer-funded public schools.

If they taught real science in our schools. The US would not rank 21 in the world. Garbage in garbage out. Educators tried to do the math and found little improvement coming in at 25.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-07/teens-in-u-s-rank-25th-on-math-test-trail-in-science-reading.html
Go to Top of Page

moakley
SFN Regular

USA
1880 Posts

Posted - 02/10/2012 :  20:28:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send moakley a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by jamalrapper

If they taught real science in our schools. The US would not rank 21 in the world. Garbage in garbage out. Educators tried to do the math and found little improvement coming in at 25.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-07/teens-in-u-s-rank-25th-on-math-test-trail-in-science-reading.html
What is the "real science" being taught in other countries that allows their students to consistently beat our students?

Life is good

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13457 Posts

Posted - 02/10/2012 :  21:14:24   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
jamalrapper

Cumulative selection can manufacture complexity while single-step selection cannot. But cumulative selection cannot work unless there is some minimal machinery of replication and replicator power, and the only machinery of replication that we know seems too complicated to have come into existence by means of anything less than many generations of cumulative selection!

Ahhh... Quote mining! Did you read the rest of the chapter?

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

moakley
SFN Regular

USA
1880 Posts

Posted - 02/10/2012 :  21:34:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send moakley a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by jamalrapper

There is a science behind Intelligent design. http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/832
From the link:
"Thus, like any true scientific theory, intelligent design theory begins with empirical observations from the natural world."
No, it doesn't. I starts with the conclusion that the "intelligent designer did it".


Here is the refutation of Dembski's work. Information Theory, Evolutionary Computation, and Dembski’s “Complex Specified Information”

And of course the Kitzmiller et al v. Dover where intelligent design got shot down as nothing more than creationism. This gets interesting on page 18 where
The history of the intelligent design movement (hereinafter “IDM”) and the development of the strategy to weaken education of evolution...
Evolution? hmmmmm. That's probably part of the Real Science they are teaching in other countries.

And of course there is always the Dembski quote.
"Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology, which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ. Indeed, once materialism is no longer an option, Christianity again becomes an option. True, there are then also other options. But Christianity is more than able to hold its own once it is seen as a live option. The problem with materialism is that it rules out Christianity so completely that it is not even a live option. Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration."
OOPS! So it's not about the science?

Life is good

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13457 Posts

Posted - 02/11/2012 :  00:35:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
moakely:
No, it doesn't. I starts with the conclusion that the "intelligent designer did it".

This is an important point for more reasons than putting the cart before the horse. The idea is to falsify evolution. I mean, that's all they do is to try to poke holes in evolution. They don't actually do any science of their own. So Behe came up with a few irreducibly complex biological systems, and every single one of them has been demonstrated to not be irreducibly complex. My personal favorite is his claim that natural explanations for the immune system were impossible. From the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, Judge Jones:
Kitzmiller v. Dover:
Although in Darwin’s Black Box, Professor Behe wrote that not only were there no natural explanations for the immune system at the time, but that natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin. (P-647 at 139; 2:26-27 (Miller)). However, Dr. Miller presented peer-reviewed studies refuting Professor Behe’s claim that the immune system was irreducibly complex. Between 1996 and 2002, various studies confirmed each element of the evolutionary hypothesis explaining the origin of the immune system. (2:31 (Miller)). In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fiftyeight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not “good enough.”
Bolding is mine.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4: Whether ID Is Science

Epic fail! Behe put his fingers in his ears, covered his eyes and went "la la la la la la la la la... I can't hear you." Rather than piling the studies up in front of him as they did, they should have beat him over the head with them.



Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 02/11/2012 :  07:51:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by jamalrapper

Many peer reviewed publications have been discarded as junk science.
Does that mean that any one in particular is "junk science?"
We have to accept his cumulative selection to get started....
But it has been argued
Cumulative selection can manufacture complexity while single-step selection cannot. But cumulative selection cannot work unless there is some minimal machinery of replication and replicator power, and the only machinery of replication that we know seems too complicated to have come into existence by means of anything less than many generations of cumulative selection!
Yeah, Dawkins himself wrote that, and then followed it up:
This is a transparently feeble argument, indeed it is obviously self-defeating.
You do realize it's common for people to set up an argument in order to show that it is false, right? It's a pretty common style of rhetoric, and to quote the argument without quoting its refutation by the same author (as you did) only shows that you're either parroting something about which you are ignorant, or that you're deliberately lying by omission. Which would you prefer?
That Dawkins never actually saw the process (development of the eye)...
Hey, that's the old creationist "were you there?!" argument. It can be used to "prove" that you were never born, jamalrapper.

You also wrote:
There is a science behind Intelligent design. http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/832
You're citing the IDEA Center? Hahahahaha! The Discovery Institute once had high hopes for that project, with their goal of "IDEA clubs" in colleges and universities worldwide, but now, not so much. The last "course" they ran was in 2003, the last "conference" they had was also in 2003 at a church, and the last "event" they had was Casey Luskin speaking at a church last July.

2003 was, of course, an important year for the Discovery Institute. It marked the fifth year after the Wedge Document got out into the public eye, and listed their five-year goals:
To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
Strike one.
To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
Strike two.
To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.
Strike three. And they've only got six years left to meet their 20-year goals:
  • To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
  • To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts.
  • To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
All Science So Far!

No, ID is dead. To meet their publishing goals, they've had to create their own peer-reviewed journals (which you, jamalrapper, apparently think we can dismiss) and build their own private labs (in which they almost immediately accidentally found evidence for Darwinian evolution, much to biologists' amusement). Their cultural goals have been failures since day one, and shot their "ID is scientific, really" statements in the foot.

Our poor performance in science education is not due to any failures of evolutionary theory, but is clearly due to the fact that our lawmakers put good primary education near the bottom of their legislative priorities. They talk a good game about wanting the US to lead, but then hobble the process by cutting budgets and passing feel-good-but-do-nothing laws like No Child Left Behind. To try to lay the blame on a single aspect of science education is a ludicrous argument when we're also not at the pedagogical acme in math, physics or history. I bet we're even low-ranking at teaching English.

The acceptance of evolutionary theory didn't cause these educational problems, jamalrapper, and Intelligent Design is certainly not the cure.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 02/11/2012 :  08:16:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Kil

moakely:
No, it doesn't. I starts with the conclusion that the "intelligent designer did it".

This is an important point for more reasons than putting the cart before the horse. The idea is to falsify evolution. I mean, that's all they do is to try to poke holes in evolution. They don't actually do any science of their own.
. . .
Absolutely right, both of youse.

Whenever someone with a completely indefensible delusion nevertheless tries to defend it, they love to use long and Latinate words, to either deliberately or instinctually give their pile of shit a cheap surface polish of erudition.

In this case, the theologists of Intelligent Design Creationism, when speaking among their own, will most often identify themselves with "presuppositionism".

Now, parse that. ""presuppositionism" is inherently a startling admission of air-tight closed-mindedness. Of fanaticism. Its use means they start by supposing the Bible is more or less correct in all regards. So if the Bible is right, and if it is not consistent with scientific evidence, then science must be wrong, period. Their minds, they admit by using "presuppositionism," are made up in advance. They have pre-judged the real universe and found it lacking. They are prejudiced against reality. This particularly brainless and anti-scientific Calvinistic thinking, I believe, is the main driving force in Christian Creationism, including ID Creationism.

So there's no rational way of talking with them, and much less use in treating them as though they were doing, or even talking about science. Anything they say about science is hogwash and rhetorical trickery. Presuppositionalism is a fancy word for refusing to recognize reality, even if it bites one on the ass.

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 02/11/2012 09:21:13
Go to Top of Page

jamalrapper
Sockpuppet

213 Posts

Posted - 02/11/2012 :  08:32:10   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send jamalrapper a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by moakley

Originally posted by jamalrapper

If they taught real science in our schools. The US would not rank 21 in the world. Garbage in garbage out. Educators tried to do the math and found little improvement coming in at 25.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-07/teens-in-u-s-rank-25th-on-math-test-trail-in-science-reading.html
What is the "real science" being taught in other countries that allows their students to consistently beat our students?

For starters. What is not taught in other countries is the incongruous attitudes towards science and math.

Check links.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRdAe3UAIVs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QBv2CFTSWU
Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 02/11/2012 :  08:43:44   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by jamalrapper

Originally posted by moakley

Originally posted by jamalrapper

If they taught real science in our schools. The US would not rank 21 in the world. Garbage in garbage out. Educators tried to do the math and found little improvement coming in at 25.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-07/teens-in-u-s-rank-25th-on-math-test-trail-in-science-reading.html
What is the "real science" being taught in other countries that allows their students to consistently beat our students?

For starters. What is not taught in other countries is the incongruous attitudes towards science and math.

Check links.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRdAe3UAIVs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QBv2CFTSWU
I call bullshit. You just pop in here each time without answering questions, but with new bullshit links instead. Answer the man, jamalrapper, or hold your peace.

Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 17 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.75 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000