Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-23-2018 11:34 PM
212 online now:
DrJones*, ICANT (2 members, 210 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*
Post Volume:
Total: 840,666 Year: 15,489/29,783 Month: 1,433/1,502 Week: 190/241 Day: 69/74 Hour: 4/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
192021Next
Author Topic:   20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum
CTD
Member (Idle past 3796 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 256 of 305 (455726)
02-13-2008 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Trixie
02-12-2008 6:34 AM


Re: Read carefully
quote:
You're getting mixed up with hyopthesis and theory.

I most certainly am not. I consistently referred to astrology as an hypothesis - never a theory.

Now Behe's definition is different. If he were to exclude every hypothesis that has failed and every theory that hasn't been stated as a testable hypothesis, he'd have to throw out all versions of macroevolution and big bangs. That'd never fly with anyone except some creationists.

He defined the word just as it is currently used. He's not the one who started abusing the word - he's merely acknowledging its abuse.

Now how about you coming up with a definition that excludes the failed hypotheses you dislike, but includes the ones you like?

And none of this has any real bearing. It's perfectly proper for biology classes to teach Spontaneous Generation hypotheses - the only bad part would be if they teach that it is true. Just how uneducated should people be when they graduate the type of school you advocate?

20 years of the Trixie/RickJB curriculum is far worse than any of the zany junk mentioned thus far for ID. Can't teach failed hypotheses & how they failed. Can't teach anything unless you can answer why it's that way. I guess that leaves recess. No gym class - just recess.

But it's not hard to see the nonsense fantasies written elsewhere in this thread for what they are. Children who are taught about both evolutionism and creation science have always scored higher on tests than those who only receive the religious indoctrination of evolutionists. The results of those experiments are in.

Nobody has yet provided any reason to doubt that this would be the case with ID. I'm glad I don't belong to a religion which strictly forbids one to learn the lessons of history.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Trixie, posted 02-12-2008 6:34 AM Trixie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by FliesOnly, posted 02-13-2008 3:22 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 267 by Trixie, posted 02-13-2008 3:58 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 2072 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 257 of 305 (455728)
02-13-2008 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by RickJB
02-13-2008 2:37 PM


Thanks. Yet another excellent example of the predictive power of the ToE. Now, if only CTD would use I.D. to make any sort of comparable prediction (but I won't be holding my breath). Hell neither he nor Beretta can supply even something as simply as a hypothesis we can actually test.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by RickJB, posted 02-13-2008 2:37 PM RickJB has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by CTD, posted 02-13-2008 3:57 PM FliesOnly has responded

CTD
Member (Idle past 3796 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 258 of 305 (455729)
02-13-2008 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by RickJB
02-13-2008 2:18 PM


Re: Read carefully
quote:
We can see the effects of gravitational lensing on stars through telescope. We also know that gravity distorts space-time, thus producing the effects we see. What is still unknown is the exact nature of gravitational radiation, but this is something that can be and is being investigated.

How does gravity do what it does?

quote:
This is no great mystery - the strong nuclear force.

How does it work?

You made up this standard. The game can go on and on. I'm surprised you can't even see one move ahead in such a simple game. Had I asked "what is the strong nuclear force?", you'd have to give me a circular answer - or just invent some new fantasy.

Even in math there are axioms/assumptions which must be made. And there are unanswered questions in all fields.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by RickJB, posted 02-13-2008 2:18 PM RickJB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by nator, posted 02-13-2008 3:46 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 280 by RickJB, posted 02-14-2008 8:33 AM CTD has responded

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 2072 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 259 of 305 (455731)
02-13-2008 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by CTD
02-13-2008 2:50 PM


Re: Read carefully
CTD writes:

I consistently referred to astrology as an hypothesis

A failed hypothesis, I might add. Or, depending how the hypothesis is worded, an untestable hypothesis. You want us to waste time teaching this in school?

CTD writes:

Now Behe's definition is different. If he were to exclude every hypothesis that has failed and every theory that hasn't been stated as a testable hypothesis, he'd have to throw out all versions of macroevolution and big bangs.

What in the hell are you talking about? Why would he include a hypothesis that has failed? How can he include a theory that hasn't been stated? And in what way does any of the crap affect the ToE, as it relates to macroevolution (your term, not mine). And who gives a fuck about the big bang theory? We're talking evolution and I.D. here, CTD, not astronomy and physics.

CTD writes:

Now how about you coming up with a definition that excludes the failed hypotheses you dislike, but includes the ones you like?

Why not exclude all the failed hypotheses, not just those we dislike...and we can call it...The Theory of Evolution?

CTD writes:

Children who are taught about both evolutionism and creation science have always scored higher on tests than those who only receive the religious indoctrination of evolutionists. The results of those experiments are in.

Wow, this is such utter bull shit on soooooo many levels.

First, your link to these studies is...?

Second, seeing as how creationism is not taught in public schools, I wonder how these "tests" were conducted.

Third, Evolution is not in any way, shape, or form, a religion, or in any way, shape, or form, religious in nature.

CTD writes:

20 years of the Trixie/RickJB curriculum is far worse than any of the zany junk mentioned thus far for ID.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You're saying that a rigorous science education is far worse than...and I quote..."any of the zany junk mentioned thus far for I.D." Glad we agree that it's both zany and junk.

Oh, hey, while I got ya here...we only have abut 40 posts to go...is there any chance that either you or Beretta will finally supply a testable, I.D. hypothesis?

Edited by FliesOnly, : No reason given.

Edited by FliesOnly, : to fix a typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by CTD, posted 02-13-2008 2:50 PM CTD has not yet responded

CTD
Member (Idle past 3796 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 260 of 305 (455734)
02-13-2008 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Larni
02-12-2008 5:24 AM


You kidder
quote:
Um...none of this is actually true, is it?

What eperiment/Observation has lent support to ID?


I must assume you're either kidding or just being contrary.

There's been plenty of work done verifying the self-evident fact that randomness does not produce complexity.

If evolutionists were true to their beliefs, I don't understand why they do some of the things they do. Upon buying a toy or piece of furniture which requires assembly, why do they not place it in the back yard and let it assemble itself? Heck, the design phase is already done, and the manufacturing as well - random forces should be able to at least finish the job.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Larni, posted 02-12-2008 5:24 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Rahvin, posted 02-13-2008 3:48 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 263 by nator, posted 02-13-2008 3:54 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 264 by RickJB, posted 02-13-2008 3:54 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 265 by bluegenes, posted 02-13-2008 3:55 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 272 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2008 5:25 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 279 by Larni, posted 02-14-2008 7:44 AM CTD has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 97 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 261 of 305 (455738)
02-13-2008 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by CTD
02-13-2008 3:06 PM


Re: Read carefully
quote:
Even in math there are axioms/assumptions which must be made.

Mathematics is not scientific.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by CTD, posted 02-13-2008 3:06 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1114 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 262 of 305 (455739)
02-13-2008 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by CTD
02-13-2008 3:36 PM


Re: You kidder
I must assume you're either kidding or just being contrary.

There's been plenty of work done verifying the self-evident fact that randomness does not produce complexity.

I must assume you're either kidding or just plain lying.

There's been plenty of work verifying the self-evidence fact that randomness can and does produce complexity.

Ever heard of a snowflake? Fractals? Evolutionary algorithms? Salt crystals? Quartz crystals? Basically any other crystaline structure?

If evolutionists were true to their beliefs, I don't understand why they do some of the things they do. Upon buying a toy or piece of furniture which requires assembly, why do they not place it in the back yard and let it assemble itself? Heck, the design phase is already done, and the manufacturing as well - random forces should be able to at least finish the job.

If Creationists were true to their beliefs, I don't understand why they continually speak from ignorance or perpetuate blatant, repeatedly exposed inaccuracies, which amounts to lying.

Your ignorant strawman of evolution is a ridiculous mishmash of evolution, abiogenesis, and a complete absence of scientific knowledge.

Where is all of this ID work, CTD? Can you produce it, or are you lying?


When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by CTD, posted 02-13-2008 3:36 PM CTD has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 97 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 263 of 305 (455741)
02-13-2008 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by CTD
02-13-2008 3:36 PM


Re: You kidder
quote:
There's been plenty of work done verifying the self-evident fact that randomness does not produce complexity.

Random mutations acted on by natural selection does.

You know, many industries use something called Evolutionary Algorythms which use Evolutionary principles to design things, often very complex things, better than humans can.

Evolutionary algorithms consistently perform well approximating solutions to all types of problems because they do not make any assumption about the underlying fitness landscape; this generality is shown by successes in fields as diverse as engineering, art, biology, economics, genetics, operations research, robotics, social sciences, physics, and chemistry.

What greater understanding of nature has ID supplied us with?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by CTD, posted 02-13-2008 3:36 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 2917 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 264 of 305 (455742)
02-13-2008 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by CTD
02-13-2008 3:36 PM


Re: You kidder
CTD writes:

There's been plenty of work done [on ID] verifying the self-evident fact that randomness does not produce complexity.

Leaving aside the fact that this is complete nonsense, how does ToE criticism amount to an ID hypothesis? Even if the ToE was incorrect, how does that in any way provide support for ID?

This comes back to the question we have been asking Beretta - what hypotheses does ID propose? How does ID work? Who exactly was/is the designer?

ID has nothing to say except "evolution is wrong" with endlessly regurgitated PRATTs.

Without a hypothesis ID amounts to nothing.

Edited by RickJB, : Typos.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by CTD, posted 02-13-2008 3:36 PM CTD has not yet responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 404 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 265 of 305 (455743)
02-13-2008 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by CTD
02-13-2008 3:36 PM


CTD writes:

If evolutionists were true to their beliefs, I don't understand why they do some of the things they do. Upon buying a toy or piece of furniture which requires assembly, why do they not place it in the back yard and let it assemble itself? Heck, the design phase is already done, and the manufacturing as well - random forces should be able to at least finish the job.

:laugh: And why don't you kneel down beside it and pray for the intelligent designer to assemble it for you? Evolutionists, my child, do not claim the instant production, design and assembly of complex biological phenomena. It is creationists who do this, so if you want instant assembly, your terrible analogy would be appropriate for them.

We evos are the billions of years ones, remember.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by CTD, posted 02-13-2008 3:36 PM CTD has not yet responded

CTD
Member (Idle past 3796 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 266 of 305 (455745)
02-13-2008 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by FliesOnly
02-13-2008 3:01 PM


Keep it
quote:
Thanks. Yet another excellent example of the predictive power of the ToE. Now, if only CTD would use I.D. to make any sort of comparable prediction (but I won't be holding my breath). Hell neither he nor Beretta can supply even something as simply as a hypothesis we can actually test.

Hmm... For my own personal curiosity, I requested examples of "Natural Selection" being tested. Instead, we get "predictions of ToE". As this is off-topic, I think it might be best to drop it.

Neither is it true that I am unable to provide an ID hypothesis. It has not been asked of me, and for three reasons I do not intend to provide one.
1.) It's another person's challenge, and as I haven't carefully read every post there's a fair chance it's been met and ignored.
2.) I'm lazy
3.) The post I reply to attempts to make me look bad for not meeting this challenge, when it was never mine to begin with. For future reference, this is not a good way to overcome reason #2.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by FliesOnly, posted 02-13-2008 3:01 PM FliesOnly has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Coyote, posted 02-13-2008 4:22 PM CTD has responded
 Message 269 by bluegenes, posted 02-13-2008 4:39 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 271 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2008 5:23 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 278 by FliesOnly, posted 02-14-2008 7:34 AM CTD has responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1633 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 267 of 305 (455746)
02-13-2008 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by CTD
02-13-2008 2:50 PM


Re: Read carefully
You actually have the gall to say

He defined the word just as it is currently used. He's not the one who started abusing the word - he's merely acknowledging its abuse.

This is a load of complete crap and the evidence which shows that it's utter crap is the Dover trial transcript!!!

Have you actually read the transcript or are you yet another cdesign proponentsist who doesn't see what the transcript has to do with this topic? Maybe if you read the transcript you wouldn't be making yet another howler! This is laughable.

I see absolutely no point in debating the utterances of Michael Behe in the Dover tral with someone who doesn't seem to have read it. How can you know what the transcript says if you won't read it?

If this is what passes for intelligent discussion, then I see no point in it.

You may declare victory in this debate since I am withdrawing because I prefer to debate with people with a smidgeon of common sense and a less troll-like attitude.

Good day to you!

Any Admins want to pick up the debate and run with it? I wish you the joys of it. When you allow trolls to run threads to their conclusion with utter bilge, you can't be surprised when debates are of such low quality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by CTD, posted 02-13-2008 2:50 PM CTD has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 33 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 268 of 305 (455752)
02-13-2008 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by CTD
02-13-2008 3:57 PM


ID hypothesis
quote:
Neither is it true that I am unable to provide an ID hypothesis. It has not been asked of me, and for three reasons I do not intend to provide one.
1.) It's another person's challenge, and as I haven't carefully read every post there's a fair chance it's been met and ignored.
2.) I'm lazy
3.) The post I reply to attempts to make me look bad for not meeting this challenge, when it was never mine to begin with. For future reference, this is not a good way to overcome reason #2.

The reason there are no ID hypotheses is that ID is religion in disguise. Its basis is fundamentalist Christian belief, not science.

Having no scientific basis, all the IDers can do is try to knock down the theory of evolution in the hope that they can raise doubts about science in general and the theory of evolution in particular, and based on those doubts, they hope to come up with some converts to their real religious beliefs. And if they can cast doubt on all of "materialism and its cultural legacies" so much the better.

But when asked to propose an ID curriculum (the topic of this thread) there is no response. There is only anti-evolutionary propaganda masquerading as pseudo-science in the hope of fooling somebody.

But hey, that's good enough! Let's teach it in the schools anyway.

I can see the curriculum now:

    "Evolution bad. Goddidit!

    Class dismissed."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by CTD, posted 02-13-2008 3:57 PM CTD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-13-2008 4:54 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 290 by CTD, posted 02-14-2008 7:40 PM Coyote has not yet responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 404 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 269 of 305 (455753)
02-13-2008 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by CTD
02-13-2008 3:57 PM


CTD writes:

Hmm... For my own personal curiosity, I requested examples of "Natural Selection" being tested. Instead, we get "predictions of ToE". As this is off-topic, I think it might be best to drop it.

And to satisfy your curiosity, I pointed you towards an earlier post of mine, which describes a test that illustrates both random mutation and natural selection in action. I'm happy to show you other examples on another thread, where we could make evidence for the respective mechanisms of ToE and I.D. the topic. It's easy to present evidence based on reality.

quote:

Adaptation to a Low Phosphate Chemostat Environment by a Clonal Line of Yeast

P.E. Hansche and J.C. Francis set up chemosats to allow evolution of a single clonal line of beer yeast in a phosphate limited (due to high pH) environment. (A chemostat is a device that allows the propagation of microorganisms in an extremely constant environment.) The yeast clones grew slowly for about the first 180 generations when there was an abrupt increase in population density. This was later shown to be due to better assimilation of the phosphate, presumably due to an improvement in the permease molecule. (Permease is an enzyme that controls what is allowed to come into the cell through the yeast's cell membrane.) After about 400 generations, a second improvement in cell growth rates occurred because of a mutation to the yeast's phosphatase (an enzyme that improves the cells ability to use phosphate). The phosphatase became more active overall, and its optimal pH (the pH where it is most active) was raised. Finally, a third mutant appeared after 800 generations that caused the yeast cells to clump. This raised the population density in the chemostat because individual cells were no longer being washed out of chemostat (which is one of the methods that the chemostat uses to maintain very uniform conditions) as quickly as they had prior to the mutation. (This is just speculation on my part, but I wonder if it wasn't under some similar conditions that multi-cellularity became favored over unicellularity - perhaps on a sea bed or river bottom.)
This experiment was repeated, and the same mutations occurred, but in different orders. Also, in one replication, the processing of phosphate was improved by a duplication of the gene that produces phosphatase. This is experimental evidence of an extremely important mechanism in evolutionary history! It is also a particularly elegant experiment because not only was all of this adaptation shown to occur in clonal lines (descended from a single individual), but the authors also determined the exact mutations that caused the improved adaptations by sequencing the genes and proteins involved.

Francis, J.E., & Hansche, P.E. (1972) Directed evolution of metabolic pathways in microbial populations. I. Modification of the acid phosphatase pH optimum in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics, 70: 59-73.

Francis, J.E., & Hansche, P.E. (1973) Directed evolution of metabolic pathways in microbial populations. II. A repeatable adaptation in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics, 74:259-265.

Hansche, P.E. (1975) Gene duplication as a mechanism of genetic adaptation in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics, 79: 661-674.


From:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

where there are several other examples.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by CTD, posted 02-13-2008 3:57 PM CTD has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 270 of 305 (455754)
02-13-2008 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Coyote
02-13-2008 4:22 PM


Re: ID hypothesis
I can see the curriculum now:

    "Evolution bad. Goddidit!

    Class dismissed."


You forgot "Amen."

:p


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Coyote, posted 02-13-2008 4:22 PM Coyote has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
1617
18
192021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018