|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2012 : 09:34:01 [Permalink]
|
Your first video does show that there is a problem in this country. The second video is a parody of the first video. Duh! It even says so at the beginning.
Evolution acceptence by country
Well... At least we beat out Turkey! Apparently in most countries, science education is doing better than in the US. This covers the general public of those countries by the way. Science is not particularly lagging in the US by actual scientists. But thanks to creationists like those at the Discovery Institute, with the agenda of pushing religion, have managed to confuse a lot of people by convincing them that there really are competing theories to evolution. Nothing could be further from the truth. They yell, "teach the controversy!" But among evidence-based scientists, there is no controversy. ID is not science.
List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design
Level of support for evolution
| Therefore, the 600 Darwin Dissenters signing the A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism represent about 0.054% of the estimated 1,108,100 biological and geological scientists in the US in 1999. In addition, a large fraction of the Darwin Dissenters have specialties unrelated to research on evolution; of the dissenters, three-quarters are not biologists.[152] Therefore, the roughly 150 biologist Darwin Dissenters represent about 0.0157% of the US biologists that existed in 1999. As of 2006, the list was expanded to include non-US scientists, overestimating the number of US scientists that do not accept evolution according to the Discovery Institute,[153] a known creationist lobby institution. Despite the increase in absolute number of scientists willing to sign the dissent form, and an increase in public support, proportionately the figures indicates the support from scientists for creationism and intelligent design is steadily decreasing. |
Bolding is mine.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
 Posted - 02/11/2012 : 09:48:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
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.
|
But that was answering your question.
Other countries create a genuine interest in the subject, their teachers have better science and math credentials and a student body interested in learning.
|
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/11/2012 09:49:50 |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2012 : 13:03:29 [Permalink]
|
Here are some interesting parallels that would make Stephen Hawkings (world renowned physicist) a poster child for Intelligent Design.
| Stephen Hawking: 1. 'Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. |
Stephen admits to preexisting forces (laws) that defined the creation of the universe from nothing. The alpha before creation of the universe, the force behind the creation. He cannot bring himself to call this force by name. But what is in a name? A rose by any other name smells just as sweet (ShakesPeare)
| Stephen Hawking: 2. “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists. |
Spontaneous creation and not an evolutionary adaptive process (Darwinism) is the very theory behind Intelligent Design. Irreducible Complexity proves spontaneous creation.
| Stephen Hawking: 3. "Unlike quantum mechanics, M-theory enjoys no observational support whatever." |
Stephen Hawking shares the same critics with Intelligent Design theorist. |
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/11/2012 13:29:17 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2012 : 13:49:08 [Permalink]
|
jamalrapper. Why don't you address our criticisms of your thesis before moving on to more quote mining?
Here's the thing though. What you guys do is shove God (or some designer, nudge nudge, wink wink) into every part of science that is not completely understood. The God of the gaps. That's not science. Support your hypothesis. What predictions can you make using Intelligent design? How can those predictions (if any) be tested? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2012 : 19:18:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
jamalrapper. Why don't you adress our criticisms of your thesis before moving on to more quote mining?
Here's the thing though. What you guys do is shove God (or some designer, nudge nudge, wink wink) into every part of science that is not completely understood. The God of the gaps. That's not science. Support your hypothesis. What predictions can you make using Intelligent design? How can those predictions (if any) be tested?
|
You appear to admit science is unable to offer many detailed explanation for a complex structure, organ, or process and that these gaps are quite exploitable. So you are now trying to move the paradigm to how testable and predictable is ID.
Check link: http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm
|
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/11/2012 19:21:24 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2012 : 20:26:51 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, I remember that essay. Dembski was asked for evidence and once again he had nothing except analogy. It's just like the movie Contact!!! 
jamalrapper, this stuff is very old and has been done to death. I'm sorry you're so behind the times, but I can suggest several resources that could catch you up to speed. Seriously, the ID movement is dead.
|
"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 02/11/2012 20:27:07 |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2012 : 20:53:31 [Permalink]
|
| Having read the link, again, I am still left wondering what testable predictions ID makes. Analogies are not a sound basis for a useful hypothesis. They just have popular appeal for the willfully ignorant. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2012 : 21:16:28 [Permalink]
|
jamalrapper:
You appear to admit science is unable to offer many detailed explanation for a complex structure, organ, or process and that these gaps are quite exploitable. |
Where did I admit that? When I made reference to the fiftyeight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system that debunked Behe's claim that the immune system is irreducibly complex and how he tried to weasel his way out when confronted with the evidence that the immune system evolved? Something he claimed was impossible! How about that video I linked to that debunkeds a Discovery Institute claim that Bacterial Chemotaxis is irreducibly complex? Was it when I put up a link to a video that debunks the IDers claim that the eye is irreducibly complex? Or is it that like Behe, you have your fingers in your ears, your hands over your eyes, and are going "la la la la la la la" when you see anything that debunks irreducible complexity? You appear to be not checking the links I post because you sure haven't made any attempt to respond to them.
jamalrapper:
So you are now trying to move the paradigm to how testable and predictable is ID. |
Since you haven't addressed any of those things I just mentioned, let alone a fact that I keep pointing out that not a single claim of irreducible complexity has held up under scrutiny, and you have instead moved on to quote mining people like Dawkins and Hawking, I figured the least you could do is explain why you think ID is science. Was that also asking too much of you? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2012 : 08:01:36 [Permalink]
|
Quite to the contrary.
The evidence of Intelligent Design is in every failed attempt by scientist to theorize, beginning with the origin of life and continuing their delusions in the origin of species. Their basic premise has not changed and are still based on the false assumption of spontaneous generation that life actually developed from non-living matter, even though spontaneous generation was disproven in the 19th century as support for biogenesis gained support.
Evidence of this false premise is still found in conceptual reference to spontaneous creation (Stephen Hawking). To a physicist "Something spontaneous happened and the universe got created. Some force like a Big Bang!!
To a biologist that spontaneous generation was possibly caused by Lightning! striking a primordial bowl of soup. Surprisingly how wise men think alike and their foolishness seldom differ.
Darwin himself believed in spontaneous generation "suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes".
"Primordial soup" theory another attempt to explain the origin of life while still clinging to a spontaneous generation.
1. Terrestrial origins – organic synthesis driven by impact shocks or by other energy sources (such as ultraviolet light or electrical discharges) (e.g. Miller's experiments)
2. Extraterrestrial origins – delivery by objects (e.g. carbonaceous chondrites) or gravitational attraction of organic molecules or primitive life-forms from space
"Soup" theory today:
Miller's experiment and subsequent work
1. The early Earth had a chemically reducing atmosphere.
2. This atmosphere, exposed to energy in various forms, produced simple organic compounds ("monomers").
3. These compounds accumulated in a "soup", which may have been concentrated at various locations (shorelines, oceanic vents etc.).
4. By further transformation, more complex organic polymers – and ultimately life – developed in the soup.
Other models:
Autocatalysis, Clay hypothesis, Gold's "deep-hot biosphere" model, "Primitive" extraterrestrial life, Extraterrestrial organic molecules, Lipid world, Polyphosphates, PAH world hypothesis, Multiple genesis.
Guess what?
Having failed to discover the origin of live scientist have moved to the origin of species (Darwin). Any intelligent person should have interrupted this unscientific migration from failure to define a unit of life to the explanation of entire species.
| Today scientists prefer to study this problem from a different paradigm or view point- they focus on the origins of the individual components of living systems and how they came together, treating the question as one of how or when evolution began instead of trying to define life and set a boundary for its origins. |
This is not science or even an attempt to discover knowledge. It is a paradigm shift every time their ignorance is exposed. But they(scientist) have survived thanks to the mindless flock they have convinced, that the absence of Intelligent Design should be self-evident with a little introspection.
The problem with skeptics is not that they ask too much, it is they ask to little and focus their attention on the little hole but fail to see the rest of the doughnut. BruceLee!!!
|
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/12/2012 08:23:16 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2012 : 08:33:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Stephen admits to preexisting forces (laws) that defined the creation of the universe from nothing. The alpha before creation of the universe, the force behind the creation. |
According to Dembski's "Design Inference," design can be ruled out if we find a necessary process behind a phenomenon. Necessary processes are what physicists like Hawking call laws.| He cannot bring himself to call this force by name. |
So you're calling Hawking a coward and a liar, since he specifically denies that the forces are god.| Spontaneous creation and not an evolutionary adaptive process (Darwinism) is the very theory behind Intelligent Design. |
Actually, evolutionary theory posits the spontaneous creation of traits through the completely natural function of physical, chemical and biological processes working within particular environmental contexts. ID posits the deliberate, pre-meditated creation of traits through the whims of a deity, denying spontaneity entirely. In this context, "design" and "spontaneous" are antonyms.| Irreducible Complexity proves spontaneous creation. |
There are no examples of irreducible complexity which cannot be explained by evolutionary processes.| Stephen Hawking: 3. "Unlike quantum mechanics, M-theory enjoys no observational support whatever." |
|
Roger Penrose said that, not Stephen Hawking. If you can't even get such basic facts straight, why should we take any of your other statements seriously?| Stephen Hawking shares the same critics with Intelligent Design theorist. |
Actually, ID proponents regularly criticize Stephen Hawking. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2012 : 08:54:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Quite to the contrary.
The evidence of Intelligent Design is in every failed attempt by scientist to theorize, beginning with the origin of life and continuing their delusions in the origin of species. |
So the only evidence for ID is the failure of other theories? No other scientific theory enjoys such a special status, what makes ID different?| Their basic premise has not changed and are still based on the false assumption of spontaneous generation that life actually developed from non-living matter... |
What is the difference between living and non-living "matter," jamalrapper?| ...even though spontaneous generation was disproven in the 19th century as support for biogenesis gained support. |
You're equivocating on terms, now. "Spontaneous generation" is very different from abiogenesis.| Evidence of this false premise is still found in conceptual reference to spontaneous creation (Stephen Hawking). To a physicist "Something spontaneous happened and the universe got created. Some force like a Big Bang!! |
So now the guy you claim could be a "poster boy" for ID is flat-out wrong. Make up your mind.| To a biologist that spontaneous generation was possibly caused by Lightning! striking a primordial bowl of soup. |
Your incredulity is not evidence for anything.| Surprisingly how wise men think alike and their foolishness seldom differ. |
That's a bizarre conglomeration of proverbs, "wise men think alike" and "fools seldom differ." And the combination of the two shows just how poor argument by proverb can be.Darwin himself believed in spontaneous generation "suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes".
"Primordial soup" theory another attempt to explain the origin of life while still clinging to a spontaneous generation. |
And this is just another attempt to equate abiogenesis with spontaneous generation. It's wrong to do so, because the concepts are completely different.| Having failed to discover the origin of live scientist have moved to the origin of species (Darwin). |
You've got the history of the research completely backwards. Miller's experiments occured 100 years after Darwin.| Any intelligent person should have interrupted this unscientific migration from failure to define a unit of life to the explanation of entire species. |
So you're calling millions of scientists stupid. Do you have a real argument?| Today scientists prefer to study this problem from a different paradigm or view point- they focus on the origins of the individual components of living systems and how they came together, treating the question as one of how or when evolution began instead of trying to define life and set a boundary for its origins. |
This is not science or even an attempt to discover knowledge. It is a paradigm shift every time their ignorance is exposed. |
So you think that throwing out wrong ideas is a bad thing?! The idea that science should retain incorrect theories and refuse to shift paradigms shows how clueless you are, jamalrapper, about how knowledge is collected and built. You're saying that science should work like the Bible. It's ridiculous.| But they(scientist) have survived thanks to the mindless flock they have convinced, that the absence of Intelligent Design should be self-evident with a little introspection. |
The absence of ID is not self-evident, it is a conclusion based on the synthesis of many, many biological, physical and chemical facts.| The problem with skeptics is not that they ask too much, it is they ask to little and focus their attention on the little hole but fail to see the rest of the doughnut. |
This is psychological projection, and nothing more.Bwahahahahahaha! |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2012 : 09:55:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Quite to the contrary.
The evidence of Intelligent Design is in every failed attempt by scientist to theorize, beginning with the origin of life and continuing their delusions in the origin of species. |
So the only evidence for ID is the failure of other theories? No other scientific theory enjoys such a special status, what makes ID different?| Their basic premise has not changed and are still based on the false assumption of spontaneous generation that life actually developed from non-living matter... |
What is the difference between living and non-living "matter," jamalrapper?| ...even though spontaneous generation was disproven in the 19th century as support for biogenesis gained support. |
You're equivocating on terms, now. "Spontaneous generation" is very different from abiogenesis.| Evidence of this false premise is still found in conceptual reference to spontaneous creation (Stephen Hawking). To a physicist "Something spontaneous happened and the universe got created. Some force like a Big Bang!! |
So now the guy you claim could be a "poster boy" for ID is flat-out wrong. Make up your mind.| To a biologist that spontaneous generation was possibly caused by Lightning! striking a primordial bowl of soup. |
Your incredulity is not evidence for anything.| Surprisingly how wise men think alike and their foolishness seldom differ. |
That's a bizarre conglomeration of proverbs, "wise men think alike" and "fools seldom differ." And the combination of the two shows just how poor argument by proverb can be.Darwin himself believed in spontaneous generation "suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes".
"Primordial soup" theory another attempt to explain the origin of life while still clinging to a spontaneous generation. |
And this is just another attempt to equate abiogenesis with spontaneous generation. It's wrong to do so, because the concepts are completely different.| Having failed to discover the origin of live scientist have moved to the origin of species (Darwin). |
You've got the history of the research completely backwards. Miller's experiments occured 100 years after Darwin.| Any intelligent person should have interrupted this unscientific migration from failure to define a unit of life to the explanation of entire species. |
So you're calling millions of scientists stupid. Do you have a real argument?| Today scientists prefer to study this problem from a different paradigm or view point- they focus on the origins of the individual components of living systems and how they came together, treating the question as one of how or when evolution began instead of trying to define life and set a boundary for its origins. |
This is not science or even an attempt to discover knowledge. It is a paradigm shift every time their ignorance is exposed. |
So you think that throwing out wrong ideas is a bad thing?! The idea that science should retain incorrect theories and refuse to shift paradigms shows how clueless you are, jamalrapper, about how knowledge is collected and built. You're saying that science should work like the Bible. It's ridiculous.| But they(scientist) have survived thanks to the mindless flock they have convinced, that the absence of Intelligent Design should be self-evident with a little introspection. |
The absence of ID is not self-evident, it is a conclusion based on the synthesis of many, many biological, physical and chemical facts.| The problem with skeptics is not that they ask too much, it is they ask to little and focus their attention on the little hole but fail to see the rest of the doughnut. |
This is psychological projection, and nothing more.Bwahahahahahaha!
|
You don't have the foggiest idea what was posted. You have been raised on a 12 step program to use the same protracted format/template in all your responses so as to avoid understanding what is being said and to escape providing responses that go beyond your frame of reference of goto statements, do while, if not then else, switch case endif, end.
You flag red herring throughout your dispositions by failing to recognize most of the information was on abiogenesis, nor was Miller mentioned as predating Darwin.
You cannot enhance a debate when you are not even on the same page. If you cannot win then you make your own rules as your style belies, a shallow critical thinker is a skeptic wannabee.
I cannot help you for being a skeptic but at least be an educated and credible one and resist the temptation to awe your peers with the same redundant 12 step mental trap you have fallen into.
|
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/12/2012 09:58:15 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 02/12/2012 : 11:04:52 [Permalink]
|
And yet in all of this, specific criticisms about irreducible complexity hasn't been addressed by you, jamalrapper. Instead it's you who have moved the conversation over to abiogenesis, which says nothing about evolutionary processes, ID or otherwise. And you accuse me of shifting the conversation? Just to refresh your memory on science, how life came to be, and evolution leading to the diversity of life are not the same science.
Now I'm off to a New Age expo. They also deal in a lot of pseudo-scientific claims, and in that way the claims they make are similar to the claims of the Discovery Institute.
Got to run... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2012 : 18:06:05 [Permalink]
|
I hope you enjoy your New Age expo, Kil. Your attraction to pseudo-scientific claims might even help you maintain a healthy balance between evolutionary dead ends and non-scientific validations of the real world which have yet to be theorized.
I find it incredulous that a christian and biologist (Kenneth Miller) who resists Intelligent Design for the primary reason it smack closer to evolutionist theory (creation, extinction, creation) which on closer examination looks very much like evolution is quoted as a staunch opposer of ID when in fact he strongly believes in creation and progressive evolution. ID is redundancy in his opinion and unwanted unsubstantiated intrusion in the evolutionary process to explain what was all part of creation after the fact. Miller believes there is no need for reconciliation between God/creation and evolution. Check link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrptftaQx58&feature=related
In fact he thinks Richard Dawkins thought he was doing science when he was actually bashing religion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2pZRyVX9bY&feature=related
So it appears ID should better align with creation than to attempt to fill in the gaps that evolution theory created.
|
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/12/2012 18:16:54 |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2012 : 06:31:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
So it appears ID should better align with creation than to attempt to fill in the gaps that evolution theory created.
|
Are you now proposing an "ID of the Gaps". Evolutionary theory doesn't create gaps. It identifies (acknowledges) the gaps in our understanding, then asks itself what should be found in those gaps in our understaning. The proposes means/experiments that help answer those questions. And there is no doubt that ID is better aligned with creation since it evolved from creation science. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
A disturbing trend, 'er no?
