|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 02/13/2012 : 10:30:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
You don't have the foggiest idea what was posted. |
Maybe you need to spend more time trying to ensure that you are understood.| 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. |
No answers to my questions. No supporting data for your own contentions. Got it.| You flag red herring throughout your dispositions by failing to recognize most of the information was on abiogenesis... |
How did I fail to recognize that? I thought you were clear.| ...nor was Miller mentioned as predating Darwin. |
Yes, you mentioned Miller's experiments on the creation of organic molecules, and then you said, "Having failed to discover the origin of live scientist have moved to the origin of species (Darwin)." But Darwin's theory predated Miller's experiments by nearly 100 years.| You cannot enhance a debate when you are not even on the same page. |
You cannot have a debate if you don't take the time to lay out your argument in such a way that it is comprehendable.| If you cannot win then you make your own rules as your style belies, a shallow critical thinker is a skeptic wannabee. |
If you can't help me understand your points, you can't win, either.| 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. |
I can't help you being a religious kook, but at least try to be an articulate one.
Also:| Miller believes there is no need for reconciliation between God/creation and evolution. |
That's because he thinks they're already reconciled, with god using evolution to do the creating. Miller has the silly belief that the job of science is to discover the methods through which god created the universe.Miller clearly says (at 6:45) that Dawkins was not being scientific with his famous quote, so your "in fact" should have read "in complete contradiction to the facts."| So it appears ID should better align with creation than to attempt to fill in the gaps that evolution theory created. |
ID aligns with biblical creationism because ID is creationism as promoted by Liars for Jesus with a political and cultural agenda (not scientific) as demonstrated already in this thread. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2012 : 11:22:13 [Permalink]
|
jamalrapper:
Miller believes there is no need for reconciliation between God/creation and evolution. |
Yeah. Miller is a scientist. He knows the difference between science, which is the study of the natural world, and metaphysics. Since invoking God is unnecessary to explain how the world works, and a belief in God is a matter of faith, he understands that "God did it" has no place in scientific research because it has no explanatory power. That you, jamalrapper are incredulous that a person of faith can separate the study of science from the purely metaphysical concept of God just tells us how little you understand what science is. Dr. Miller understands, which is exactly why he rejects ID. ID doesn't actually tell us a damned thing about natural processes and is merely an attempt by creationists to circumvent the constitution by replacing the word "God" with "intelligent designer."
The wedge strategy and the "Trojan horse" of creationism |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2012 : 12:48:32 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
That's because he thinks they're already reconciled, with god using evolution to do the creating. Miller has the silly belief that the job of science is to discover the methods through which god created the universe. |
Personal beliefs notwithstanding, when Miller doing science, he's a straight forward scientist.
And as much as we don't agree with NOMA, when Gould was doing science, he was a straight forward scientist.
That you or I think Miller's belief is silly is irrelevant as long as it's science that he's doing when he's doing is science. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2012 : 13:02:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Personal beliefs notwithstanding, and something he doesn't push at others, when Miller doing science, he's a straight forward scientist. |
Indeed. But he's doing the right thing for the wrong reason. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2012 : 13:16:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Kil
Personal beliefs notwithstanding, and something he doesn't push at others, when Miller doing science, he's a straight forward scientist. |
Indeed. But he's doing the right thing for the wrong reason.
|
You can say that about all people of faith. How do you know that he doesn't have the same love for knowledge that motivates most scientists? So I wouldn't say that he's doing it for the wrong reason. How he reconciles science with his faith doesn't mean that his quest for knowledge isn't motivated by precisely the same reason that all scientists do science. Unfortunately for him, though he probably doesn't see it this way, is he must rationalize in order to line up what he knows to be true with what he believes to be true. But that's his problem. Not ours. (Not that you said it was.) He remains a very good scientist. And in the battle against the pseudo-science of ID, he's been one of the most effective voices in the public sphere for what is and what isn't science.
Science advocacy |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2012 : 15:05:24 [Permalink]
|
Darwinism is a mechanistic theory. Unlike physical laws such as gravity, evolution is based on so called naturalistic laws which are not as easily demonstrable (tested, verified, duplicated etc.) This causes gaps in our knowledge which evolutionist try to explain with reasonable assumptions. But the origin of complex adaptation is still very much a mystery which is what ID raises by highlighting the many Irreducible complexity of organisms that cannot be explained by a simplistic mechanistic adaptation theory, the rock bed of Darwinism.
The lack of transitional forms. The limited fossil cache found are surrounded by controversy. That evolution is a result of random, chance process and not purpose driven defies the predictability of what governs basic principles of laws.
Just like creationist the ID troopers are also made up of biologist and scientist and some of their zealousness can be viewed as unscientific. But there are many evolutionist who are not always scientific in everything they believe or say.
The application of Irreducible Complexity is still very novel. But a good case besides the bacteria flagellum crosses my mind. Craig Venter one of the first biologist to sequence the human genome claimed to have created the first synthetic life in a lab.
What was interesting about the project was the synthesizing of a very long DNA molecule containing an entire bacterium genome, and introducing this into another cell which only worked when it had the entire genome copied and failed when some were left out. Even here the application of Irreducible Complexity makes sense.
Now take the human genome. IS there anything you can reduce/subtract from it so that it can revert to an chimpanzee or advance the evolution of an ape to turn human. Irreducible complexity predicts that cannot be done. |
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/14/2012 11:35:44 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2012 : 15:09:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
You can say that about all people of faith. How do you know that he doesn't have the same love for knowledge that motivates most scientists? So I wouldn't say that he's doing it for the wrong reason. How he reconciles science with his faith doesn't mean that his quest for knowledge isn't motivated by precisely the same reason that all scientists do science. |
I didn't say it just because he has faith, I said it because Miller himself has said that science is a way for him to know the mind of god, or some such.
He may be, as you suggested, fooling himself into thinking that that's his motivation - and that if he became an atheist overnight he'd still be a scientist without faith driving him - but I'm not going to second-guess his own statements.| He remains a very good scientist. And in the battle against the pseudo-science of ID, he's been one of the most effective voices in the public sphere for what is and what isn't science. |
Yes and yes. But as you know, that doesn't mean we can't criticize his other statements. |
- 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 - 02/13/2012 : 15:26:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Darwinism is a mechanistic theory. Unlike physical laws such as gravity, evolution is based on so called naturalistic laws which are not as easily demonstrable (tested, verified, duplicated etc.) |
So you're saying that gravity is not a natural law?| This causes gaps in our knowledge which evolutionist try to explain with reasonable assumptions. But the origin of complex adaptation is still very much a mystery which is what ID raises by highlighting the many Irreducible complexity of organisms that cannot be explained by a simplistic mechanical adaptation theory, the rock bed of Darwinism. |
Name a single IC trait that cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. Behe couldn't do that. Can you?| The lack of transitional forms. |
What lack?| The limited fossil cache found are surrounded by controversy. |
What limited fossil cache? What controversy? If it's not a controversy among scientists, who cares?| That evolution is a result of random, chance process and not purpose driven defies the predictability of what governs basic principles of laws. |
Given that logic, I must conclude that you argue against quantum physics, too.| Just like creationist the ID troopers also made up of biologist and scientist and some of their zealousness can be views as unscientific. |
Most of the ID proponents are lawyers and engineers, not scientists.| But there are many evolutionist who are not always scientific in everything they believe or say. |
And?| The application of Irreducible Complexity is still very novel. |
It's been almost 40 years since creationists jumped on the concept as being the death knell of evolutionary biology. When is even a single application of it going to be announced that isn't an easily-refuted bit of dogma?| But a good case besides the bacteria flagellum crosses my mind. |
The flagellum was never a good case for IC.Craig Venter one of the first biologist to sequence the human genome claimed to have created the first synthetic life in a lab.
What was interesting about the project was the synthesizing of a very long DNA molecule containing an entire bacterium genome, and introducing this into another cell which only worked when it had the entire genome copied and failed when some were left out. Even here the application of Irreducible Complexity makes sense. |
How is that an "application" of IC? You need to use these words as scientists use them.| Now take the human genome. IS there anything you can reduce/subtract from it so that it can revert to an chimpanzee or advance the evolution of an ape to turn human. |
Wow, such a potent misunderstanding of evolutionary theory and common descent. Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees.
But, in answer to the question you should have asked: yes, if we had the complete DNA sequence of, say, an australopithecus, there's no reason to think that we could modify a human embryo to match it and have some woman give birth to Baby Lucy.| Irreducible complexity predicts that cannot be done. |
So it's not a theory, just a limitation. |
- 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 - 02/13/2012 : 15:28:06 [Permalink]
|
| Kenneth Miller should be the poster child for Christians struggling with Evolution/Darwinism. His basic premise is God created the physical and natural laws that govern the processes within which gravity and evolution operate(the frameworks is gods creation. Evolution is not an act of random chance or process but of order and purpose even as it peddles along without intrusive periodical divine intervention. The fact that it has worked as well as it has suggest an intelligent creator somewhat different from intelligent design which suggest some of the dumb stuff found could be attributed to dumb mistakes in design....no that you blame evolution for. |
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/13/2012 15:29:36 |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2012 : 17:18:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Dave:
That's because he thinks they're already reconciled, with god using evolution to do the creating. Miller has the silly belief that the job of science is to discover the methods through which god created the universe. |
Personal beliefs notwithstanding, when Miller doing science, he's a straight forward scientist.
And as much as we don't agree with NOMA, when Gould was doing science, he was a straight forward scientist.
That you or I think Miller's belief is silly is irrelevant as long as it's science that he's doing when he's doing is science.
|
Which is the total opposite of what Miller thought Dawkins was doing. | Miller said: When Dawkins thought he was doing science he was actually bashing religion. |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrptftaQx58&feature=related
I am glad you support Millers position on evolution/Darwinism. Most Christians do. |
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/13/2012 17:20:57 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2012 : 17:44:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
I am glad you support Millers position on evolution/Darwinism. Most Christians do.
|
Yeah. But I don't care about their quibbles. They are both scientists. They are both very good evolutionary biologists. And they both agree that ID is not science. And that's what this discussion is about. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2012 : 18:21:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by jamalrapper
I am glad you support Millers position on evolution/Darwinism. Most Christians do.
|
Yeah. But I don't care about their quibbles. They are both scientists. They are both very good evolutionary biologists. And they both agree that ID is not science. And that's what this discussion is about.
|
Kenneth Miller is a theistic evolutionist who believes in evolution creation which is not a scientific theory. So how do you justify rejecting ID which is also accused of not being a scientific theory. But both have roots in an intelligent creator/designer. BTW Dr Behe is a biologist/scientist too. 
I posted prophetically.
| When even our basic understanding of single-celled and multicellular organisms are flawed and skeptics too eager and biased to support every evolutionary bias in favor of evolution. We need to set lower expectations on the two disciplines so they are viewed judiciously and not declared short of functional idiots. |
|
| Edited by - jamalrapper on 02/13/2012 18:34:13 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2012 : 18:38:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Evolution is not an act of random chance or process but of order and purpose even as it peddles along without intrusive periodical divine intervention. |
So we agree! Great!| The fact that it has worked as well as it has suggest an intelligent creator... |
Okay, we don't agree on the unevidenced philosophical nonsense. What a shame. |
- 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 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2012 : 18:43:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by jamalrapper
I am glad you support Millers position on evolution/Darwinism. Most Christians do.
|
Yeah. But I don't care about their quibbles. They are both scientists. They are both very good evolutionary biologists. And they both agree that ID is not science. And that's what this discussion is about.
|
Kenneth Miller is a theistic evolutionist who believes in evolution creation which is not a scientific theory. So how do you justify rejecting ID which is also accused of not being a scientific theory. But both have roots in an intelligent creator/designer.
|
You're wrong. Kenneth Miller has many times stated that the game isn't rigged. Do you know what he means by that? He completely agrees that evolution is a naturalistic process.
In a criticism of him by Jerry Coyne, Miller responds:
...Coyne claims that "theistic evolutionists" like me exhibit three of the four hallmarks of creationism, making me really no different from the folks I opposed at the Kitzmiller trial. He couldn't be more wrong about that. I share exactly one thing in common with creationists, which is my belief in God. The other points of supposed agreement are figments of Coyne's imagination—or of his overwrought efforts to slander any believer by placing them in the "creationist" camp.
He seems to argue that a person of faith who accepts evolution must also believe God "micro-edited DNA" to guide evolution. While it's certainly true that a Divine author of nature could intervene in his world at any time,I have never argued for the sort of divine tinkering that Coyne finds so disturbing. In fact, I have argued exactly the opposite. Evolution is not rigged, and religious belief does not require one to postulate a God who fixes the game, bribes the referees, or tricks natural selection. Unfortunately, Coyne does not seem to appreciate this point... |
KENNETH R. MILLER: An Exclusionist View of Science
And by the way, again, I was talking to Dave about motives. Millers science is solid.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
A disturbing trend, 'er no?
