|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
 Posted - 11/01/2004 : 02:23:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Hi, Jerry. In the above, you admit that ID doesn't answer-- indeed can't answer-- who designed life on earth. This is fine. Any theory that claims to have answers for every question probably doesn't.
But why is it OK for ID to say that questions of the origins of life on earth aren't a concern of ID, but that abiogenesis is so troubling for you? In an earlier post, you wrote:
JERRY: No Darwinist I am aware of, from Stanley Miller to Richard Dawkins has ever proposed a credible scenario of abiogenesis being caused by chemical evolution. So this first organism would appear to be a *poof* to some.
Why does not knowing the god/magical pink unicorn (peace be upon his horn)/alien seem fine for ID, but abiogenesis not? (And by the way, Dawkins, in his book The Blind Watchmaker, does talk about the origins of life. I'm looking at the book now. My version is with the 1996 copyright, a paperback publication by W.W. Norton. Look at chapter 6, "Origins and Miracles," pp. 139-66.)
Actually, I'm quite infamous in painting the designer as the purple alligator goddess who lives in your underwear drawer. However, I am glad to temporarily relent on this and run with a magical pink unicorn, pbuh.
I didn't say we aren't concerned with it. I simply acknowledged that we have no evidence to point toward the identification of any particular designer.
What troubles me in contrasting abiogenesis with design is mathematics. One involves chance, the other involves a sure thing because if I build a go-cart, I did. Period. Abiogenesis falls to 0 on the probability line when we calculate the uncertainty and round it off to fit on the probability line. Design can only fall at one because if it was designed, then it was. And if it wasn't then it came about by chance which math shows to be scientifically impossible. What other options of origins can you think of?
LOL...I still haven't read that book which, given its popularity, should give you an idea how behind I am in real life. And I supposedly took an early retirement. *shaking head*
quote:
"The 'Wedge' Document" it says "The 1998 manifesto of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture lays out their plans for destroying science as it is currently done and replacing it with 'theistic science.'" It's right there. But still, you answered the question, so thanks.
Then I apologize as it was there and I just missed it. My bad.
quote:
Next issue: in that same lengthy post, you hold that "common descent cannot be falsified." I must (again) disagree. I'm not trained in any way in the ToE, though, and others have a much better command of the evidence than I, do I turn to them. A nice link, used for an entirely different debate, is this one. It's the very first post to the thread, so I don't think you can miss it. I think that the best evidence comes from so-called retroviruses, which "are able to insert their DNA or RNA into the host DNA." On rare occasions, their imprint is made on the host's DNA, and that viral "scar" can be passed down to the host's offsrping. (Again, I'm summarizing and paraphrasing from Peptide's excellent post.) The rarity of this event is such that when "two people having the same ERV at the same letter of DNA," it is virtually certain that "they share something like a great, great, great grandparent" or some other ancestor.
Yes, I have studied these endogenous virii to the max as at first I thought this might be evidence for Darwinism and against ID. Believe it or not, if there exists such evidence, I want to know it and if justified, I'll throw ID out the window and get something else to torment everybody else with like my almost god-given ability to sew Native American medicine bags with gennywine turquoise inside which most definitely heals people. Maybe.
Now, you openly admit you are not a scientist and I openly admit I slept through humanities (thank God my wife is a linguist), so I don't think it will insult you if I talk the science down a bit.
Viruses reproduce by exchanging nucleic acids with their hosts and viruses are sometimes host specific meaning that some cat viruses only infect cats. But many are not host specific. An example of this is the rabies virus which can infect a whole host (pun intended) of similar species.
And although many viruses are not host specific, some are indeed site specific. This means that these retroviruses are pre-programmed to act similarly in different hosts and they will attach themselves at the same loci (location) on the same chromosomes.
When viewing these viral insertions in man and chimp, the DNA is so similar that when the two organisms are infected with the same virus, we would fully expect the same viral insertions on the same chromosomes. This is what we see--no big deal. Intelligent point, though.
quote:
Earlier, I asked you if ID made predictions, or if it could be falsified. You offered a list of things ID predicts, but, as I noted then, the seem "more like a long, incomplete definition of what ID is," as opposed to actual predictions that can be falsified.
Help me out, as I'm perplexed-- how does one falsify the claim that "irreducibly complex systems will only be designed by an intelligent agent or preprogrammed code designed by an intelligent agent"
We can take these one at a time if you wish. I will address the one you mentioned and then you are welcome to pester me with others. But let's do it one at a time so we can get this argument out of the way.
One could falsify that IC systems can only be produced by intelligence by giving an example of an IC system that was created by natural processes.
Lawnmowers can be reduced to a core IC system. We can start removing parts until we are down to a body, four wheels, something to push, a gasoline tank connected to a carburetor in which gas is mixed with air to flow into a cylinder to power a piston in which mechanical energy is transferred to a pulley cutting blade system which cuts you grass.
Explain to me how nature has, or even is capable of producing this. If you cannot, then let's look at a very similar biological system:
Same concept. It just powers a boat called a bacterium rather than cuts that bacterium's grass. |
| Edited by - JerryB on 11/01/2004 05:52:05 |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2004 : 03:55:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I don't buy the possibility this is the reason for the rift. I think the poll I mentioned where 90% of college graduates reject Darwinism (other than theistic evolutionists which comprises about 30% of those polled if I remember correctly) rather refutes that notion. One cannot even make it through high school today without understanding the concept. Science, just does not make the case for it and it's quite obvious, I believe, to those who will study it with an open mind.
I've never heard of this. What colleges; Liberty University and Oral Robert's shindig? Who took the poll and where is it published? Is it the ToE they alledgly reject, or this Darwinism concept, whatever that might be?
Further, Pastuer did not disprove abiogenesis. You are confusing abiogenesis with spontainous generation, which are not the same. The later of these he did indeed disprove. Fly maggots, worms and mice do not burst forth from the humours of a rotting carcass. This outright lie is often done intentionally by the likes of Hovind, Sarfati, Morris, and others of the ilk. Research into abiogenesis is alive and and well. Just because we don't know does not mean that we'll never know, one way or another.
I'm rather suprised that you'd come up with that turkey. But hey, look on the bright side. That research might yet debunk the hypothisis.
Hmph. You claim a designer that you either can't or refuse to describe and can't or refuse offer solid evidence of it's existance, but you ask us to accept it anyway. Pink Unicorns and Cosmic Hypnotoads, Bandersnatchs and Jabberwocks; all muster about the same credence.
 |
"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 : 04:44:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I've never heard of this. What colleges; Liberty University and Oral Robert's shindig? Who took the poll and where is it published? Is it the ToE they alledgly reject, or this Darwinism concept, whatever that might be?
Hey you're pretty close! It's just more of them dumb dang religionists making up this stuff. This particular group is probably run by Hovind, but I can't prove it. They are hiding their religious guise by going under the camouflage of the University of Cincinnati:
"Nearly a third of college graduates in recent Gallup polls still believe in the biblical account of creation," and that about 45% believe that God created human beings "pretty much in (their) present form at one time or another within the last 10,000."
"That's a lot of people," Bishop told ABC News. "That's not like it's some small minority position." Other findings are equally provocative:
39% believe in a form of so-called "theistic evolution," where evolutionary processes developed over millions of years but were "guided" by God.
"Only about 10% subscribe to evolution without any form of divine guidance or intervention as an explanation of how life began.
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/evol4.htm
quote:
Further, Pastuer did not disprove abiogenesis. You are confusing abiogenesis with spontainous generation, which are not the same.
Hmmm....Are you sure about this? Let's go to my favorite dictionary and just look the terms up:
Abiogenesis: The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.
Well, let's try it the other way around:
spontaneous generation n. See abiogenesis.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=spontaneous%20generation
Oh well.
quote:
Hmph. You claim a designer that you either can't or refuse to describe and can't or refuse offer solid evidence of it's existance, but you ask us to accept it anyway. Pink Unicorns and Cosmic Hypnotoads, Bandersnatchs and Jabberwocks; all muster about the same credence.
No, I don't claim any designers or ask you to accept any. In fact, I don't even know any designers other than my Aunt Norma who does interior design. I simply claim to be able to detect design as do archeologists, paleontologists, SETI scientists and cryptologists. You seem extremely confused. 
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2004 : 07:09:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
quote:
I've never heard of this. What colleges; Liberty University and Oral Robert's shindig? Who took the poll and where is it published? Is it the ToE they alledgly reject, or this Darwinism concept, whatever that might be?
Hey you're pretty close! It's just more of them dumb dang religionists making up this stuff. This particular group is probably run by Hovind, but I can't prove it. They are hiding their religious guise by going under the camouflage of the University of Cincinnati:
"Nearly a third of college graduates in recent Gallup polls still believe in the biblical account of creation," and that about 45% believe that God created human beings "pretty much in (their) present form at one time or another within the last 10,000."
"That's a lot of people," Bishop told ABC News. "That's not like it's some small minority position." Other findings are equally provocative:
39% believe in a form of so-called "theistic evolution," where evolutionary processes developed over millions of years but were "guided" by God.
"Only about 10% subscribe to evolution without any form of divine guidance or intervention as an explanation of how life began.
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/evol4.htm
So around 50 percent subscribes to the modern synthesis, whether directed by God or undirected. What would be interesting would be the question whether those 39% you mentioned would be of the opinion that unguided evolution could happen, but didn't, out of faith.
Furthermore, I would like to see a split up of these figures based on the studies done. I would recon that amongst the 'critics' there would not be a lot of biology students.
quote:
quote:
Further, Pastuer did not disprove abiogenesis. You are confusing abiogenesis with spontainous generation, which are not the same.
Hmmm....Are you sure about this? Let's go to my favorite dictionary and just look the terms up:
Abiogenesis: The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.
Well, let's try it the other way around:
spontaneous generation n. See abiogenesis.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=spontaneous%20generation
Oh well.
The concept Pasteur specifically disproved was that, for example, maggots spontaneously arose out of rotting meat. This is a whole different concept than the concept of abiogenesis as it is looked at today. Thus, he did not disprove the concept of abiogenesis as looked upon today, but disproved the concept as looked upon then.
To research this you'll have to do more than look at some dictionary quotes. You'll have to dive into the history of the concepts, how they were looked upon at that time, by the people at that time. Only this way you can assess what Pasteur did or did not research.
quote:
quote:
Hmph. You claim a designer that you either can't or refuse to describe and can't or refuse offer solid evidence of it's existance, but you ask us to accept it anyway. Pink Unicorns and Cosmic Hypnotoads, Bandersnatchs and Jabberwocks; all muster about the same credence.
No, I don't claim any designers or ask you to accept any. In fact, I don't even know any designers other than my Aunt Norma who does interior design. I simply claim to be able to detect design as do archeologists, paleontologists, SETI scientists and cryptologists. You seem extremely confused.
But you also claim that this design is not arrived at through natural selection and mutation. So you do claim designers, or at least you rally against the claim of a specific one (namely a natural, unintelligent one).
[/quote] |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2004 : 07:45:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Explain to me how nature has, or even is capable of producing this.
Why not?
I may be outright wrong, but what I'm getting is, you think the non-existent 'complex evolution' or whatever can't exist simply because nature, unless guided, couldn't produce such things by chance. Name it as you will; second law of thermodynamics, entropy, whatever.
For me, that's simply underestimating nature and the universe as a whole by giving to it a perfectly human characteristic - i.e., intelligence. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2004 : 08:09:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
No, I don't claim any designers or ask you to accept any. In fact, I don't even know any designers other than my Aunt Norma who does interior design. I simply claim to be able to detect design as do archeologists, paleontologists, SETI scientists and cryptologists. You seem extremely confused.
I am. What the hell are we talking about? Do you yourself know?
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.
Abiogenesis as we consider it today was not studied in Pastur's day. Spontainous generation was a prevelent superstition of the times and might still be somewhere.
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.
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2004 : 08:24:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
What troubles me in contrasting abiogenesis with design is mathematics. One involves chance, the other involves a sure thing because if I build a go-cart, I did. Period. Abiogenesis falls to 0 on the probability line when we calculate the uncertainty and round it off to fit on the probability line. Design can only fall at one because if it was designed, then it was. And if it wasn't then it came about by chance which math shows to be scientifically impossible. What other options of origins can you think of?
Hi, Jerry. Regarding this, I must say that other people-- both here and elsewhere-- disagree about the math being "scientifically impossible." But I'll have to let them deal with you.
quote:
And although many viruses are not host specific, some are indeed site specific. This means that these retroviruses are pre-programmed to act similarly in different hosts and they will attach themselves at the same loci (location) on the same chromosomes.
When viewing these viral insertions in man and chimp, the DNA is so similar that when the two organisms are infected with the same virus, we would fully expect the same viral insertions on the same chromosomes. This is what we see--no big deal. Intelligent point, though.
Hmmm. This isn't how I understand these retrovirus things (I always imagine a retro virus was one that wears leg warmers and listens to Men at Work) to work. I googled (is it a bad thing that "google" is now a verb?) 'retrovirus' 'primate' and got this as the first hit. I don't know if eveyone can actually read the article, as I'm presently writing from a university library computer that may have special access to it.
In any case, the link is to an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98:18 (31 Aug, 1999) entitled "Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences." I admit that I can't follow all of it (because let's be honest: who really understands things like "The presence of each HERV in a given species was determined by PCR amplification of both the 5' and 3' LTRs of the HERV from genomic DNA"?), but I the thrust of the article is similar (but far more detailed) to what Peptide wrote in the post I linked earlier.
Moreover, the authors disagree with your notion that we should expect similar organisms to have the exact same retrovirus "scars" in their DNA.
Indeed, the authors write (and again, I'm sorry if some of you can't access the article):
quote:
First, the distribution of provirus-containing loci among taxa dates the insertion. Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). 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 (14).
(The parenthetical numbers are references to the bibliography; I can cut and paste them for anyone interested)
This is completely different from your argument. Why are these guys-- apparently smart people from Tufts University-- so unaware of your argument? Are they that ignorant of something so basic?
quote:
One could falsify that IC systems can only be produced by intelligence by giving an example of an IC system that was created by natural processes.
Lawnmowers can be reduced to a core IC system. We can start removing parts until we are down to a body, four wheels, something to push, a gasoline tank connected to a carburetor in which gas is mixed with air to flow into a cylinder to power a piston in which mechanical energy is transferred to a pulley cutting blade system which cuts you grass.
Hmm. Good question, but I'm not sure that it's the right way to think about the diversity of life on earth. I mean, the lawn mower is something that was designed with a function-- to cut grass. But life on earth doesn't have a predetermined function. (Unless you assume a designer, perhaps?) Well, it has one-- to reproduce. Everything else is just a means to help it do that, right? But reproduction isn't that hard. (Well... )
So I'm just not sure that saying "look, something as complex as a lawn mower never just happens in nature" is a good example. But I'll think about that some more... |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 11/01/2004 08:25:53 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2004 : 09:36:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
quote:
Actually, ID is forced to propose "poofs" because if there were no "poofs," then gradualistic evolution is not a problem. For examples,
The "poof" in which a racemic mixture of amino acids suddenly became homochiral,
the "poof" of design in which all the organs in the mammalian circulatory system were designed whole and in place, or
the "poof" in which what looks like common descent had intelligent help to overcome the SLOT,
These are not inconsequential "poofs," as they're all entirely without observed evidence here on Earth. You can plead to unknown and unknowable designers all you like, but the evidence they may have left behind has entirely vanished. From what I understand of what you say about ID, it depends on the appearance of "poofs" for its support, and "explains" those "poofs" as the consequence of an intelligent designer.
You lost me on your logic altogether here.
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.
quote:
quote:
And yet, Abiogenisis has on-going research programs, wins grant money based upon its testable hypotheses, and appears to be a healthy and well-established science. How does this compare to ID?
Abiogenesis doesn't exist. Spontaneous generation has been refuted for 400 years.
Well then, give us sources? Where are they?
quote:
Pasteur refuted it again later.
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.
quote:
Miller refuted it again when he tried to produce life...
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.
quote:
There is no ID biology in existence that could get any grants for research.
Who in their right mind would waste money on ID biology research on such shaky grounds as you present here?
You may believe in what you are saying, but whenever you start typing, you convince us all the more that you are barking up the wrong tree. Your failure to convince us of the validity of ID hypothesis only reinforce the theory of evolution and common descent.
quote:
quote:
You may attack Abiogenesis all you like, and think you're disputing "Darwinism," but in fact, evolution doesn't "care" where life came from, be it an intelligent designer, a pre-biotic goo, God, an astronaut, or from outside this universe. It doesn't make any predictions about how life began, just like you claim that ID doesn't attempt to identify a designer.
Evolution may not, but Darwinism certainly does as it attempts to explain the origin of life. This is inverted logic in that life originated but since abiogenesis is not a part of Darwinism then it really did not originate. Why are you attempting to shy away from Abiogenesis. Do you simply view the concept as unsupportable?
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.
quote:
Without ID somewhere in the picture, you have no credible explanations at all when we get down to the most basic questions such as how the universe came to exist.
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?
quote:
When the law of conservation of energy states that matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed, then where do you think the matter/energy came from to power the big bang? Did it arrive by osmosis, magic, what?
This only shows your lack of understanding of the current Big Bang theories.
quote:
The fact is that things that do not exist cannot contain things that do exist. Therefore there could have been nothing in this universe before it existed in order to power the big bang. How does your philosophy of naturalism explain this obvious breach of logic?
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.
quote:
And you have no evidence at all to suggest that the initial designers were not another advanced race of human or even humanoid astronauts from the planet Xenon.
This is not a positive assertion, no one can show that kind of evidence.
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.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2004 : 10:12:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
What troubles me in contrasting Abiogenesis with design is mathematics. One involves chance, the other involves a sure thing because if I build a go-cart, I did. Period.
What you fail to consider is that natural selection plays a part in this.
Your analogy of tossing 500 coins is lacking. In the real world, we get to save all the heads and only toss the coin with tails. Indeed, even if I was allowed to save only one head more each toss, I would rather quickly get all heads. This is paraphrasing a part of the theory behind Abiogenesis.
My brother is totally inept when it comes to assembling something as mechanical as a go-cart, anything he might do could be considered random assembly. Given enough parts and enough time, I could tell him when parts he assembled was ok, or should be tossed away. I would be acting as a natural selection process, and eventually we'd have a go-cart. It wouldn't be a good one, but it would do the job.
quote:
Yes, I have studied these endogenous virii to the max as at first I thought this might be evidence for Darwinism and against ID. Believe it or not, if there exists such evidence, I want to know it and if justified, I'll throw ID out the window and get something else to torment everybody else with like my almost god-given ability to sew Native American medicine bags with gennywine turquoise inside which most definitely heals people. Maybe.
<snip>
And although many viruses are not host specific, some are indeed site specific. This means that these retroviruses are pre-programmed to act similarly in different hosts and they will attach themselves at the same loci (location) on the same chromosomes.
Please provide references to research that actually show this. Because Peptide's post here states otherwise.
quote:
When viewing these viral insertions in man and chimp, the DNA is so similar that when the two organisms are infected with the same virus, we would fully expect the same viral insertions on the same chromosomes. This is what we see--no big deal. Intelligent point, though.
Ah, but that's moving the goal post. We are not talking about viral insertions on the same chromosome. We're talking about insertion at the very same nuclei. That's a major difference.
|
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. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2004 : 10:38:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by JerryB
Those are your words. I don't believe that ToE violates SLOT, nothing violates SLOT as it is a universal law of the universe. I argue that the complexity of evolving organisms in the process of macroevolution would have violated SLOT and since we know nothing violates it, this did not happen and it become little more than a fairy-tale for grown-ups.
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.quote:
Well, that quote from the DI does not address the quote from me, I don't believe. The fact that they have "re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature" is probably true. But I would hardly think that the DI is comprised of the people that form the rift I pointed out previously as these people are not members of the DI.
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.quote:
I also want to point out that I see materialism as largely just another religion in that when one comes to a conclusion that there are no metaphysical attributes to the universe, they have stepped out on faith to do so. Since faith can be defined as a belief in something where there is no evidence to support it, how can this philosophy be anything other than religion since there is no evidence to support materialism?
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.quote:
I agree that YEC tends toward a literal interpretation of Genesis. But YECs are few and far between in the ID movement. In fact, I would think you could find almost all of them somehow associated with the DI. I used to be a fairly regular poster at ARN until I got tired of the place and considering the regular posters over there, I can think of only 2 YECs while I can also think of 4 very pro-ID agnostics. And just for the record, I know some very moral atheists. That's ot an issue with me.
This misses the point entirely. Your evidence that only 10% of college graduates fully accept evolution didn't question anyone about ID. 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.quote:
Darwin proposed common descent in Origin of Species (others also did) so yes common descent seems the gist of Darwinism but this represents a very broad category from transitional fossils like therapsid, archie and pakicetus all the way up to hierarchies, random mutation and natural selection.
Your point being?quote:
That challenge is formally withdrawn.
Fine.quote:
This is simply a baseless assertion as I view thermodynamics no differently than any honest thermodynamicist that teaches the subject. That does not count those biased ones who claim SLOT could not have prohibited macroevolution but this is just religious bias on their part. I've debated several of those guys at the PhD level and they simply cannot support that assertion with science and math. I can mine.
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.
What is it about large changes in genes which violates SLOT while smaller changes in genes do not? 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.quote:
You lost me on your logic altogether here. There are no probabilities involved in a designer situation. An object is either designed one way or it is designed another way. There no poofs in chirality involved in the case of a designer, a designer simply picks the parts it wants and runs with them.
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 the change from racemic to homochiral is a "poof" from an evidenciary point of view. You've got no evidence that a designer was involved other than to point to the discontinuity and claim that as evidence.quote:
How many poofs do you suppose happen with the design of a new car or a skyscraper? You seem to have missed something, somewhere.
No, it is you who are missing the fact that human design cannot be compared to the design of an unknown and unknowable designer. It's like comparing apple |
- 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 : 11:21:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Come on. I'm trying to play nice, and Kil specifically told everyone to play nice. Play nice, dammit!
Kil said no name calling. And it's not "namecalling" to refer to a fundamentalist creationist preacher by that description, because that's what he in fact is.
And I'm still waiting for Jerry to explain how his "theory" isn't arguing for a supernatural designer. He's gone on and on at length saying he isn't, but he states several things clearly about ID, and gives us CSI as evidence for ID.
1. CSI cannot occur randomly in nature.
2. CSI must be designed.
Therefore, no designer can occur naturaly.
Therefore, the only possible designer is of supernatural origin.
He can cry and claim he's not arguing for a supernatural creator all he wants, but his own statements clearly contradict that position. One of his major statements, offered as evidence for ID, very clearly states that the only possible designer is of supernatural origin.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2004 : 13:20:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Hey, astropin: has this sort of massive derailment happened to every thread you've started?
WOW! I go away for the weekend at look what happens. It's fine with me Dave. It's been very entertaining. Hope some of you saw my last post about emailing the Dover School System in Pennsylvania; remember that part of this post? |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2004 : 13:49:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by astropin
Hope some of you saw my last post about emailing the Dover School System in Pennsylvania; remember that part of this post?
Yes, I did, and I also followed the instructions to send the letter of protest.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2004 : 13:49:51 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote:quote:
Kil said no name calling.
Kil also said,Lets everyone try to stay cool. Between the two, the clear implication is that we should place nice.quote:
And it's not "namecalling" to refer to a fundamentalist creationist preacher by that description, because that's what he in fact is.
I believe it is name-calling when the object of your obvious derision finds the terms "lying" and "fundamentalist" to be offensive. If someone tells you they don't like a particular label, then using it when referring to them is a pretty transparent attempt to insult them.
astropin wrote:quote:
WOW! I go away for the weekend at look what happens.
One of these days, you'll learn that the SFN is more important than anything else in your life. Weekends become times to click "Active Topics" every ten minutes instead of lame excuses to go running out of town. Where the hell are your priorities, man?!? |
- 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 : 14:05:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I believe it is name-calling when the object of your obvious derision finds the terms "lying" and "fundamentalist" to be offensive. If someone tells you they don't like a particular label, then using it when referring to them is a pretty transparent attempt to insult them.
pfffffpt....
ok ok, nice it is.
|
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
