Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Science Under Attack
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 376 of 438 (517987)
08-03-2009 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by Wounded King
08-03-2009 3:17 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
I think the problem is that using this scenario virtually everything written by all ID proponents would also need to be discarded.
Not all IDists believe in what other IDists believe in. Of course arguments occur between Darwinists as well on evolution. So where would you draw lines?
Why should there be any 'edge' to evolution in this scenario, how does it explain the existence of supposedly irreducibly complex systems that surely can't all have been present in the 'first physical life' on Earth.
Maybe the aliens cultured and made bacteria already equipped with flagellum and cilium.
I assume you mean on Earth, otherwise your aliens are presumably non-physical life and that seems to be shading into the supernatural/religious side of things.
Yes the aliens would have to be non-physical life that wouldn't require IC systems. The second senario was time travel and that was also in Behe's "Darwin's Black Box".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Wounded King, posted 08-03-2009 3:17 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by Wounded King, posted 08-03-2009 5:42 PM traderdrew has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 377 of 438 (517992)
08-03-2009 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by traderdrew
08-03-2009 2:43 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
Please do not misrepresent what I say. My original quote is.
So please show me an atheist that is a firm believer in guided transpermia. Sounds quite interesting. I would love to see what evidence they might have. I am sure it will be as riveting and scientific as any other ID argument.
You made it sound like I would never accept that there could be an atheist that believed this. In actuality as you can see from the original post I was asking so I could see what kind of evidence they might have. I was quite correct. There is no evidence.
I was expecting you to mention Crick. Much more has been made of this in creationist and ID circles than is the reality. There really is no there, there. Crick did propose this as a possibility, but in no way advocated that this IS what happened. At a later date he published an article that had a different view.
quote:
In a retrospective article, Crick and Orgel noted that they had been overly pessimistic about the chances of abiogenesis on Earth when they had assumed that some kind of self-replicating protein-based system was the molecular origin of life[3]. With the discovery of ribozymes it became possible to imagine an RNA world and the origin of life in the form of possibly a single self-replicating polymer that could function as both a genetic molecule and as a source of enzymatic activities.
Source
Also, Talkorigins has a good review of what Crick actually said about transpermia.
quote:
Crick's book is about his proposition that life on Earth may have been the result of "directed panspermia." It should be noted that, in the book, he assumes that the aliens who he posits might be "seeding" the universe are, themselves, the product of evolution. In this quote, Crick is simply pointing out how, in the absence of evidence, the appearance of life on Earth might seem like a miracle. But he specifically admits that abiogenesis may have occurred on Earth as a result of ordinary chemical processes that require no resort to outside intelligence. Leaving out that part of it, by cutting off what immediately follows, is deeply dishonest.
I asked for an atheist that was a "firm believer in guided transpermia". Though he brought up the idea, you would be hard pressed to say he was a firm believer. As a matter of fact evidence shows that he later did not stand by the idea.
You see this is being objective. Taking in the new evidence and changing your views. That is what scientists like Crick do.
Edited by Theodoric, : Spelling, format

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by traderdrew, posted 08-03-2009 2:43 PM traderdrew has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 378 of 438 (517994)
08-03-2009 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by Percy
08-03-2009 3:49 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
Actually it is more of the "Make sure you know the evidence" category.
Percy writes:
From the "Be careful what you ask for" category:
traderdrew writes:
So please show me an atheist that is a firm believer in guided transpermia.
Francis Crick is an atheist who also codiscovered DNA in 1953.
See page 248 of "Darwin's Black Box" (quoted below)
The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origoin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a naturalistic explanation.

Nice job, TD!
--Percy
The quote from "Darwins Black Box" is not true. If people actually read Crick they will read the full quote.
After this
quote:
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."
Is this
quote:
" . . . so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."
(Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)
Hardly the words of a strong advocate of directed transpermia.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by Percy, posted 08-03-2009 3:49 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by Percy, posted 08-03-2009 7:35 PM Theodoric has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 379 of 438 (518005)
08-03-2009 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 376 by traderdrew
08-03-2009 4:18 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
So where would you draw lines?
Surely since you are the one propounding ID the question is where do you draw the line? A couple of pages ago you were saying that the edge of evolution according to Behe was around the level of phylum, now you are saying that immaterial aliens made bacteria to seed the earth. So where did all the phyla come from?
It sounds like you aren't drawing any lines but just searching around madly for anything that might come remotely into line with a belief in ID.
This is what critics of ID are talking about when they say there is no coherent theory of ID. Heck, several proponents of ID have said it isn't a theory at all, simply a challenge to evolution.
So why not start drawing some lines and telling us what you actually believe, otherwise how can we start telling you exactly how wrong you are?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by traderdrew, posted 08-03-2009 4:18 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by traderdrew, posted 08-06-2009 12:19 PM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 390 by traderdrew, posted 08-09-2009 1:49 PM Wounded King has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 380 of 438 (518027)
08-03-2009 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by Theodoric
08-03-2009 4:49 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
Doh!
Sorry, TD, I'm going to have to take it back, and give myself a kick in the pants, too. You're going in the right direction, though, making sure you support your position with evidence. But on the Internet you have to make sure you're using reliable sources, and be especially careful of sites with an agenda.
For an example of the Internet's potential for unreliability, try looking up who said, "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." Let me know what you find.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Theodoric, posted 08-03-2009 4:49 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by Theodoric, posted 08-03-2009 8:10 PM Percy has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 381 of 438 (518036)
08-03-2009 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by Percy
08-03-2009 7:35 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
For an example of the Internet's potential for unreliability, try looking up who said, "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." Let me know what you find.
I couldn't wait for TD.
So far I find it is attributed to Abraham Lincoln mostly, followed by Mark Twain, a smattering of Winston Churchills and then Socrates has a strong following too.
Damn I am usually pretty good at finding original source material on the web. Either there isn't any or it is very obscure.
So what is the answer oh sage one.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by Percy, posted 08-03-2009 7:35 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by Percy, posted 08-03-2009 8:23 PM Theodoric has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 382 of 438 (518038)
08-03-2009 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 381 by Theodoric
08-03-2009 8:10 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
Anonymous. Who woulda' thought!
Bartlett's Quotations doesn't include it, and it *does* have sections for anonymous sayings.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by Theodoric, posted 08-03-2009 8:10 PM Theodoric has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 383 of 438 (518520)
08-06-2009 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by Wounded King
08-03-2009 5:42 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
It sounds like you aren't drawing any lines but just searching around madly for anything that might come remotely into line with a belief in ID.
It is more like I am exploring the topics but not searching around madly.
This is what critics of ID are talking about when they say there is no coherent theory of ID. Heck, several proponents of ID have said it isn't a theory at all, simply a challenge to evolution.
Going back to guided transpermia, I would say it is non-theistic ID.
I think the problem with any coherent theory of ID is that intelligent designers don't apparently have a total need for rigid mechanistic methods in order to assemble things. I'm sure an intelligent designer can utilize natural laws but there are times where an intelligent designer intervenes or designs but leaves no repedative patterns.
I'm not trying to argue with you so much as I am asking for your view on this.
So why not start drawing some lines and telling us what you actually believe, otherwise how can we start telling you exactly how wrong you are?
I am not a believer in the transpermia theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by Wounded King, posted 08-03-2009 5:42 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by Coyote, posted 08-06-2009 12:41 PM traderdrew has replied
 Message 385 by Theodoric, posted 08-06-2009 1:48 PM traderdrew has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 384 of 438 (518525)
08-06-2009 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by traderdrew
08-06-2009 12:19 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
I think the problem with any coherent theory of ID is that intelligent designers don't apparently have a total need for rigid mechanistic methods in order to assemble things. I'm sure an intelligent designer can utilize natural laws but there are times where an intelligent designer intervenes or designs but leaves no repedative patterns.
Wouldn't this more properly be studied under Theology than some branch of science?
One definition of Theology is:
Theology is the study and commentary on the existence and attributes of a god or gods, and of how that god or those gods relate to the world and, especially, to human existence and religious thought...
That is exactly what you are describing.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by traderdrew, posted 08-06-2009 12:19 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by traderdrew, posted 08-09-2009 12:40 PM Coyote has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 385 of 438 (518540)
08-06-2009 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by traderdrew
08-06-2009 12:19 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
Going back to guided transpermia, I would say it is non-theistic ID.
This is just a red herring. You haven't been able to provide one staunch advocate of directed transpermia. Are there any organizations promoting it? Is anyone trying to get it taught in school?
The whole transpermia thing is just an attempt by you to obfuscate the dialogue.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by traderdrew, posted 08-06-2009 12:19 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by traderdrew, posted 08-09-2009 12:33 PM Theodoric has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 386 of 438 (518901)
08-09-2009 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by Theodoric
08-06-2009 1:48 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
You haven't been able to provide one staunch advocate of directed transpermia.
You mean to tell me that out of all the atheists that exist in the world not one of them believes in guided transpermia?
The whole transpermia thing is just an attempt by you to obfuscate the dialogue.
It wasn't my main point in the first place. The point that I was really trying to make was Darwinism can be used as a religion. ID does not tell us what kind of religious rituals to perform and of course neither does Darwinism. Darwinism isn't a religion but when faith is added to it to the point when you think it disproves the existence or the need of an intelligent designer, then it is religion.
I noticed there have been posts on this forum that essentially say that ID should be disqualified on the basis of religion. If this is so then I could say that everything that Richard Dawkins says in his books shouldn't carry any merit but I don't.
There are of course scientists who believe that science and religion are two different hemispheres and I tend to pretty much agree with them. The only problem I see with this is the idea would assume both realities don't overlap.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by Theodoric, posted 08-06-2009 1:48 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by Theodoric, posted 08-09-2009 12:49 PM traderdrew has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 387 of 438 (518902)
08-09-2009 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by Coyote
08-06-2009 12:41 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
ID is an origins science. So I think that when people are thinking from the paradigm of Darwinism, they are thinking from the paradigm of organisms mostly in operation. When you are thinking from operations science you don't easily switch to an origins science. At least I didn't do so until a point similar to this was made in "Signature in the Cell".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by Coyote, posted 08-06-2009 12:41 PM Coyote has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 388 of 438 (518904)
08-09-2009 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 386 by traderdrew
08-09-2009 12:33 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
You mean to tell me that out of all the atheists that exist in the world not one of them believes in guided transpermia?
I don't know. You brought it up like you knew some big secret and you could show something(I am not sure what). Then you bring up Crick and you were totally debunked. So since you brought it up how about providing some evidence.
The point that I was really trying to make was Darwinism can be used as a religion.
But you do not provide any evidence. Just unsupported assertions.
Darwinism isn't a religion but when faith is added to it to the point when you think it disproves the existence or the need of an intelligent designer, then it is religion.
WTF? Faith? The Theory Evolution has no basis in faith, its basis is in scientific evidence. Please show this faith of which you speak.
I noticed there have been posts on this forum that essentially say that ID should be disqualified on the basis of religion. If this is so then I could say that everything that Richard Dawkins says in his books shouldn't carry any merit but I don't.
The two things are no where near equal. Is anyone trying to get Dawkins taught in school? Does Dawkins have some doctrine of belief based on his books? He is an atheistic, scientist with very strong viewpoints. ID wants to supplant evolution in schools. Not equivalent.
Id and its proponents claim an Intelligent designer started it all and designed(created) the species of the world. This is supernatural. You believe in a supernatural designer. You can call it what you will. If you claim you do not believe in the wedge document or the principles of the leading ID groups then you are a stooge being used by them. You are using their arguments which are rooted in religion. Which are rooted in fundamentalist christianity.
You claim to be a follower of druidism. Which flavor do you follow? Druidism can mean many things. Ultimately follows of druidism believe in a god or gods. SO I think it is easy to see how your belief in ID is influenced by your religious beliefs.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by traderdrew, posted 08-09-2009 12:33 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by traderdrew, posted 08-09-2009 1:38 PM Theodoric has replied
 Message 392 by traderdrew, posted 08-12-2009 12:11 PM Theodoric has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 389 of 438 (518907)
08-09-2009 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by Theodoric
08-09-2009 12:49 PM


Re: Creation "science" again
Although you do have some points in some of your posts, I think we agree to disagree and there is no point in further arguing with our disagreements. I will let you have the last word.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by Theodoric, posted 08-09-2009 12:49 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by Theodoric, posted 08-09-2009 2:05 PM traderdrew has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 390 of 438 (518908)
08-09-2009 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by Wounded King
08-03-2009 5:42 PM


The Darwin Delusion?
So why not start drawing some lines and telling us what you actually believe, otherwise how can we start telling you exactly how wrong you are?
Fair enough, let's start with some information from this forum.
Message #356 - Wounded King: I hadn't been following this part of the argument but looking at the recent literature I think there is a good chance that both you and Perdition are wrong and that in fact the TTSS and the bacterial flagellum, rather than one being ancestral to the other, merely share a common ancestor (Gophna et al., 2003). The exact relationship still seems to be in doubt though (Macnab, 2004).
Let's look at some Darwinian conjecture from Perdition under another topic.
EvC Forum: Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments
Message #72 - Perdition: All you need is a mutation to occur at a spor that doesn't do any harm to the organism. Then that mutation will be passed down in that family line. At some point, perhpas hundreds of years later, you have another mutation that builds on the previous one. It may help, it may do nothing, but as long as it doesn't hurt the survival of an organism, again, it gets preserved.
So what does this mean? It means according to Wounded King, there is a good chance that Perdition was wrong based on Darwinian conjecture! It is safe to say that Darwinian conjecture doesn't always work. Has anybody actually observed neutral mutations building a novel functional structure?
Let's take this a step further. We all know that DNA builds proteins but, how does DNA build structures based on a hierarchy of proteins? Proteins are assembled to form cells and cells are assembled to form tissues and tissues are assembled to form organs and all of these are assembled to form overall body plans.
Let me answer that. I would say that what was known as "junk DNA" determines this.
I can say that Darwinian conjecture is almost trivial unless the conjecture explain whatever biochemical process exceptionally well. Has it even been taken to the point to where it has been used to create a delusion? I would suspect that those who use it as a religion or an antireligion do this although I don't expect anybody to admit it. Some of them may not even be conciously aware they are doing this.
If Darwinists couldn't explain the hierachial assembly of body plans then, how could they have even competed with intelligent design or even creationism?
Only recently have evolutionary scientists such as Sean Carroll attempted to explain this with the science of Evo Devo. Back in 1997 we saw something that Carroll wrote:
Hox genes, which control much of an animal's basic body plan, were likely first evolving around that time. Development of these genes might have just then allowed the raw materials for body plans to diversify (Carroll 1997).
This quote was referring to the Cambrian explosion and I found it on talkorigins.org. (Use the search terms "hox Cambrian" in that site.) Was this more Darwinian conjecture? It appears so since we later saw this from Carroll:
The surprising message from Evo Devo is that all of the genes for building large, complex animal bodies long predated the appearance of those bodies in the Cambrian Explosion. The genetic potential was in place for at least 50 million years, and probably a fair bit longer, before large, complex forms emerged. (Carroll, 2005)
Intelligent design would predict that the tools and the conditions would have been in place before purposeful and planned steps were made. This being the case, hox genes were in place before the Cambrian explosion.
The most stunning discovery of Evo Devo [that similar genes shape dissimilar animals]... was entirely unanticipated. (Carroll, 2005)
However, this would be a prediction from my hypothesis I call "assemblism". Creationism essentially means using supernatural powers to create something fundamentally new. Assemblism means to build things out of parts without necessarily breaking natural laws. It says that an intelligent designer would use parts from various organisms to build species. It says that common ancestry is quite possible.
I suspect you are a scientist Wounded King. I respect your knowledge so I would appreciate where I am wrong on any of my details. Of course, I expect you to come back with more than just details.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by Wounded King, posted 08-03-2009 5:42 PM Wounded King has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024