|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Just because they have degrees and a few published works, doesn't mean that everything they write or say is science. Of course not. I'm sure when emailing relatives they speak about personal matters, not scientific ones.
They stopped doing science when they abandoned the scientific method. That's true of all scientists - the science stops when they're no longer using the method. Michael Behe is a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University to this day. How has he abandoned science? The majority of his work has little to nothing to do with ID. That is an extra-curricular interest that came about directly as an inference from the work he does. But even though his opinion formed from his work doesn't mean that his immediate work entails ID.
It's difficult to imagine that an adult educated in the United States wouldn't at least have the slightest working knowledge of genetics. Are you really saying that this is the case? That when Percy says "genetics", you have absolutely no idea what he's talking about? Did I say that? I said nothing even remotely akin to that. What I said was is his explanation of how procryptic abilities could have evolved by chance by simply saying, "genetics," is not an answer.
You've never heard of random mutation? You're telling me that the mantis just so happened to procure this ability by a change in a single base or in a nucleotide or a whole sequence? That seems like a fantastic coincidence, wouldn't you agree?
You've never heard of natural selection? Mantises that didn't look like twigs starved because their prey spotted them before they could strike, and they were outcompeted by mantises that looked more like twigs and could get more food. That's a terrific hypothesis except that it can't be verified by anything. Aside from which, competing against each other isn't the issue. Its how such an ability can come about at all, that just so happened to look intentional. I think for face value even you could concede that it certainly appears intended. That doesn't mean that it necessarily was, but would you agree? And being that the Mantis isn't the only creature to employ such a marvelous feature makes the odds of lightening striking twice or thrice, or whatever, seem more than implausible, but closer to impossible.
You've never heard any of this? Of course I have. It just doesn't explain the more pressing questions.
Even the creationists can usually come up with examples of natural selection in action. Natural selection is pretty much moot in the instance of something like this developing.
It's surprising that you've rejected evolution while knowing literally nothing about it. I think the problem is that you know little about it, not me, which might explain your unflinching support of something so untenable. The vast preponderance of mutations are either neutral or detrimental. Even supposing that a beneficial mutation came along, we aren't talking about one mutation, we're talking about a slew of them that acts off of the premise of the first. Seriously, what are the odds that the mantis just so happened to look like a twig, or an octopus and chameleon that can blend in with its background, all from a series of mutations + natural selection? Now, I will certainly say that animals can adapt to their environment, within limitations. However, we should distinguish between variability and variation. The development of an organism, along relatively predictable pathways despite abnormality or injury, should be introduced as a variable that will either help or hinder the case of biological evolution. As well as this, we should consider developmental constraints, biological versatility, the effects both pro and con of a significant homeobox alteration, etc. In other words, the applicable question is how extant species could acquire any new and improved contrivance solely by mutation and selection? Beyond that, the fact that the contrivances that make camouflage possible are so widespread that it would take numerous mutations occurring relatively simultaneously.
Better-adapted organisms survive to the detriment of lesser-adapted ones. Of course, but you are assuming that such a feature could have developed in order to beat out its competitors.
You've never seen a human climb a tree? Or run? Or use a tool? Or cooperate in groups? What am I supposed to deduce from that?
For one thing, it's not that effective. The cells don't "update" fast enough to work when the organism is moving, for instance; so camouflage abilities become a lot less useful for predators who have to run down their prey or have a metabolism (like mammals) where they can't simply wait around for the food to walk up to them. Are you telling me that an octopus is slow and cumbersome and needed some other defense/offense to evade from predators and to catch prey? Again, you're just making this up as you go. You have no way of knowing any of this. This is exactly what the ToE is based upon. Its based on the plausibility of something rather than anything of substance. They'll note that mutations happen and so does natural selection and by adding them together, voil, sympatric speciation.
Remember too that nature doesn't plan ahead. It would certainly seem to have to if evolution is true.
Natural selection depends on environment. That's the basic lesson of all that. Until you're thinking in terms of the interactions of organisms and their environments, you won't really understand how evolution explains things. If we conducted some freaky Nazi-Germany experiments on dogs where we raised them in total darkness for their entire lives, for say, 10 generations, would their acuteness to darkness increase or would they eventually develop sonar or some derivative of that? Small adaptations can and do occur. I fully concur. And some animals are better suited to their environment. An Arctic fox is obviously going to fare better than a red fox in a snowy environment. Or when we look at the Great White shark, we can note that its underbelly is white so that anything underneath can't see it that well. When we look at the dorsal portion of the fish it is a darker color making it more difficult to see from below. Its predation instincts compel it to feed primarily from diving deep then driving itself forward to attack the prey. Was that design or selective pressures? I don't know. Perhaps a bit of both. But we are talking about monumental changes here with the other three organisms I listed. There is a vast difference. There are limitations to how far any organism can adapt. If you think about it, there has to be. You can see such limitations with the advent of dog breeding. We all know that a pure breed carries less information than wild phenotype. Generalized, wild stock has a greater propensity than an isolated, specialized one. The greater the influence of this specialized sub-population becomes, the more it thins out the wilds with the most genetic variability because it swamps the mongrel stock with purebreds. The ability for variation is actually depleting with every successive generation, not becoming more suitable overall. We all know this intuitively, which is why such a high stress on mutations to save the day. The only problem is, they don't save anything-- they kill without impunity. "With derision the atheist points out that there can be no God because this world is so unfair. Without hesitation, I concur with him. Indeed, we live in an unfair world because of all sorts of social ills and perils. I must not contend with such a sentiment because it is factual-- we don't live in a fair world. Grace is unambiguous proof that we live in an unfair world. I received salvation when I deserved condemnation. Yes, indeed this world is unfair." -Andrew Jaramillo-
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5521 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
Scientific theory employs branches of science to verify its claims. Where's the ambiguity in that? Theory does not encompass its own branch of science.
Eh?Are we still talking about that? I thought it was plenty clear to everybody by now that this difference between the role of science theory and science branches is just a misconception. your persistance is incomprehensible. What people call a branch of science is a collection of interconnected scientific theories. Take the theories away, and there will be nothing left.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5521 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
You're telling me that the mantis just so happened to procure this ability by a change in a single base or in a nucleotide or a whole sequence? That seems like a fantastic coincidence, wouldn't you agree? Your own incredulity, by itself, is not a valid argumment agaist evolution (or anything else for that matter). You have to substantiate your argumment with reasons why a combination of random mutations and natural selection is, in your view, an unsuitable explanation for the phenomenon. Simply stating you don`t believe it doesn`t cut it.
That's a terrific hypothesis except that it can't be verified by anything. just your opinion Aside from which, competing against each other isn't the issue. Its how such an ability can come about at all, that just so happened to look intentional. I think for face value even you could concede that it certainly appears intended. That doesn't mean that it necessarily was, but would you agree? And being that the Mantis isn't the only creature to employ such a marvelous feature makes the odds of lightening striking twice or thrice, or whatever, seem more than implausible, but closer to impossible. more arguments from incredulity
Natural selection is pretty much moot in the instance of something like this developing. Another unsubstantiated statement of your opinion
I think the problem is that you know little about it, not me, which might explain your unflinching support of something so untenable. The vast preponderance of mutations are either neutral or detrimental. Even supposing that a beneficial mutation came along, we aren't talking about one mutation, we're talking about a slew of them that acts off of the premise of the first. Seriously, what are the odds that the mantis just so happened to look like a twig, or an octopus and chameleon that can blend in with its background, all from a series of mutations + natural selection? Why don`t you answer that question yourself. What are those odds? Do you have any reason to believe that the answer to that question will cohoborate your position? if so, what reason is that?
Beyond that, the fact that the contrivances that make camouflage possible are so widespread that it would take numerous mutations occurring relatively simultaneously. Once more you give us an unsubstantiated statement of your opinion
The ability for variation is actually depleting with every successive generation, not becoming more suitable overall. We all know this intuitively, which is why such a high stress on mutations to save the day. The only problem is, they don't save anything-- they kill without impunity. One final instance of a statement of your opinion. Do you have anything substantial at all to give us to support ID, or all you have to offer is that repetitive statement of desbelief that random mutation+natural selection could have done it???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Michael Behe is a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University to this day. How has he abandoned science? I thought I explained this already. When Behe generates popular press books about how to use an unworkable, untested "Design filter", he's not doing science because he's not generating knowledge based on the scientific method. On the other hand, when he sits down at the lab bench and tests hypotheses using experiments and observation, and then communicates his results to his peers for review, then he's doing science. I didn't meant to imply that he had turned his back on science, forever. It's just that when he's publishing popular books about ID or stumping for religious creationists - just like when he's emailing his relatives - at that time, he's not doing science.
What I said was is his explanation of how procryptic abilities could have evolved by chance by simply saying, "genetics," is not an answer. That's not what he said, though. He explained heredity by genetics, not procryptism. Procryptism is explained by random mutation and natural selection, like every other naturally-evolved trait. How specifically did it happen, as in, step-by-step? I have no idea. Trying to find out would be a monumental effort in phylogenetics, developmental evolution, and biochemistry.
You're telling me that the mantis just so happened to procure this ability by a change in a single base or in a nucleotide or a whole sequence? That seems like a fantastic coincidence, wouldn't you agree? You mean, is it a coincidence that an organism's genetics has an effect on its physical form? No, I don't see anything coincidental about that. Why do you? And what we're talking about isn't an ability, it's just a shape. Mantises are shaped like twigs, because, in the mantis's environment, being more twig-looking has a linear benefit over looking less like a twig.
That's a terrific hypothesis except that it can't be verified by anything. It's verified by the fact that we know natural selection occurs, and that many predators hunt by vision, and many prey evade by it. The obvious conclusion from that is that anything that's going to make it less likely for you to be seen by predators or prey is going to be a net benefit.
Aside from which, competing against each other isn't the issue. It's always the issue, because it's always there. Competition is always occurring.
And being that the Mantis isn't the only creature to employ such a marvelous feature makes the odds of lightening striking twice or thrice, or whatever, seem more than implausible, but closer to impossible. How many species are there? (Hint: as far as we know, more than 2 million.) How many of them have camouflage characteristics? The odds don't seem that weird to me. Maybe it's unlikely for lightning to strike the same place twice; on the other hand, globally, there's one hundred lightning strikes occurring every single second.
Natural selection is pretty much moot in the instance of something like this developing. No, the exact opposite is true. Natural selection is exactly how this happened. Think about it. Camouflage isn't like having "half a lung". Every little bit helps. Creatures with just a little camouflage are more successful than those with none at all. When all the creatures with no camouflage are gone, only those with a little camouflage are left. Among those, though, the amount of camouflage begins to vary (because of mutations and sexual recombination.) Some have more and some have less. Those that have less die out (they're outcompeted.) Those that have more are more successful. Incrementally, the species becomes more camouflaged. All due to natural selection and random mutation. In what sense is natural selection "moot" in the above example?
Of course, but you are assuming that such a feature could have developed in order to beat out its competitors. It's just a body shape. The body shape of organisms are determined by their genetics, so of course it could have developed.
The vast preponderance of mutations are either neutral or detrimental. Yes, but irrelevant, as natural selection eliminates the detrimental mutations. So all that's left are the neutral or beneficial ones.
Seriously, what are the odds that the mantis just so happened to look like a twig, or an octopus and chameleon that can blend in with its background, all from a series of mutations + natural selection? 1/1, apparently, since it happened.
In other words, the applicable question is how extant species could acquire any new and improved contrivance solely by mutation and selection? How couldn't they? If you have a source of both negative and positive novelty (mutation), and then you have a filter that eliminates the negative novelty over time, what are you eventually left with? Only the positive novelty. Mutation and selection acting together give rise to new function. As if anybody could doubt something so obvious, we've got decades of simple experiments that prove it.
You've never seen a human climb a tree? Or run? Or use a tool? Or cooperate in groups?
What am I supposed to deduce from that? That humans can climb trees, run, use tools, and cooperate in groups, none of which you seemed to believe was possible when Percy said humans could do.
Are you telling me that an octopus is slow and cumbersome and needed some other defense/offense to evade from predators and to catch prey? Are you telling me that the octopus gets no help at all from the camouflage ability? I mean, wasn't that your point? That the camouflage ability is so useful and beneficial? Now you seem to be backpedaling from that. Well, which is it? Are these abilities useful and beneficial, or aren't they? If they are, why is it so hard for you to imagine that there's a selective advantage for individuals that have these abilities over those individuals that do not? You have two octopuses. One has the camouflage ability, the other does not. Better yet you have two populations of these otherwise-identical octopus species. Which do you think is more likely to be more successful at hunting and evading predators, and thus is more likely to leave more offspring?
They'll note that mutations happen and so does natural selection and by adding them together, voil, sympatric speciation. The observation of natural selection and random mutation happening now proves that they were operating in the past, and that it's reasonable to conclude that common decent could have happened; the fossil record - a record of organisms that were alive in the past - shows us that it did happen. Where's the guesswork? Where's the "making it up as we go along"? I see only models that fit the evidence, have explanatory value, and make testable predictions.
It would certainly seem to have to if evolution is true. No, it doesn't.
If we conducted some freaky Nazi-Germany experiments on dogs where we raised them in total darkness for their entire lives, for say, 10 generations, would their acuteness to darkness increase or would they eventually develop sonar or some derivative of that? No, of course not. 10 generations isn't nearly enough, and moreover, there's no way to predict what kind of mutations are going to occur. But they would definitely adapt to the darkness in some way over enough generations.
There are limitations to how far any organism can adapt. In a world where we can take the genes from bacteria and insert them into corn? In a world where a mouse can grow a human's ear on his back to help a maimed victim? No, there are no limitations on how far an organism can adapt, because there are no limitations on what sequences an organism can have in their DNA. All natural selection and random mutation do are make changes to DNA, and the only difference between any organism and any other is the content of their DNA. Evolution is responsible for all of those differences. Observations of the present tell us that evolution can be responsible; observations of the fossil record tell us that it was responsible.
The only problem is, they don't save anything-- they kill without impunity. ...wha? You have somewhere between 5 and 50 mutations in your own genetic code. You, personally. Are you dead?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4111 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
Michael Behe is a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University to this day. How has he abandoned science? The majority of his work has little to nothing to do with ID. That is an extra-curricular interest that came about directly as an inference from the work he does. But even though his opinion formed from his work doesn't mean that his immediate work entails ID.
yes he's a scientist when he produces things using the scientific method, but behe has never once produced anything having to do with ID, but he claims it's science? if its an hobby why does he claim its science or fact? why wouldn't he show it, if he believes its true?
Did I say that? I said nothing even remotely akin to that. What I said was is his explanation of how procryptic abilities could have evolved by chance by simply saying, "genetics," is not an answer.
i guess after all this time, percy thought you might have an understanding of how genetics works, including how procryptic abilities would come about
You're telling me that the mantis just so happened to procure this ability by a change in a single base or in a nucleotide or a whole sequence? That seems like a fantastic coincidence, wouldn't you agree?
eh? sorry but, please go read what the theory says for an understanding of how this happened, its pretty much how everything came about ie: mutations of genes found to be better through NS filtering its not fantasic or a coincidence its NS at work, your own lack of seeming to not grasp the basic concepts not withstanding
That's a terrific hypothesis except that it can't be verified by anything. Aside from which, competing against each other isn't the issue. Its how such an ability can come about at all, that just so happened to look intentional. I think for face value even you could concede that it certainly appears intended. That doesn't mean that it necessarily was, but would you agree? And being that the Mantis isn't the only creature to employ such a marvelous feature makes the odds of lightening striking twice or thrice, or whatever, seem more than implausible, but closer to impossible.
so the fact that both birds and bats fly seem impossible to you? or birds losing flight? or pteridactals being able to fly? the theory states that NS effects the organism by promoting traits that allow the animal to live and procreate, part of NS is competition
Of course I have. It just doesn't explain the more pressing questions
for someone who says they do it doesn't seem like it, these questions seem like the questions of someone who doesn't know much about it at all
I think the problem is that you know little about it, not me, which might explain your unflinching support of something so untenable. The vast preponderance of mutations are either neutral or detrimental. Even supposing that a beneficial mutation came along, we aren't talking about one mutation, we're talking about a slew of them that acts off of the premise of the first. Seriously, what are the odds that the mantis just so happened to look like a twig, or an octopus and chameleon that can blend in with its background, all from a series of mutations + natural selection?
you make it sound like god poofing stuff into existance, the fact is you ignore that the process took millions of years and the enviriment the creatures devoloped the abilities they have now doesn't exist anymore. its not like they started from point one with the ablity to change colorsyour objection to mutation being a cause for the things we see is sad to say the least after all this time. sorry to point this out, but you don't seem to grasp the theory at all. Now, I will certainly say that animals can adapt to their environment, within limitations. However, we should distinguish between variability and variation. The development of an organism, along relatively predictable pathways despite abnormality or injury, should be introduced as a variable that will either help or hinder the case of biological evolution. As well as this, we should consider developmental constraints, biological versatility, the effects both pro and con of a significant homeobox alteration, etc.
there is no difference its all the samething, only people trying to wiggle around and pick and choose what they accept change this.what developmental constraints? the only constraints is the enviriment and what NS does to keep the animal from dying out. as an example for instance i rememeber faith talking about parrots being brighter colors in captivity but not in the wild, and does that show more variation in captivity or in the wild? well let me ask you, if you live in a place that is mostly green leaves and trees and need to blend in would you be green or a blinding bright blue? the way i see it, you are arguing from the conclution, we see lifeforms that can change color, they look designed, because they match the enviriment they need to, well if NS because of the enviriment demands green parrots would you see any blue ones around? there might be born some blue ones, but because of NS they die out from something, being eatten mostly
In other words, the applicable question is how extant species could acquire any new and improved contrivance solely by mutation and selection? Beyond that, the fact that the contrivances that make camouflage possible are so widespread that it would take numerous mutations occurring relatively simultaneously.
what? why would it need to happen at once? there are stable points in an enviriment, and things do get co-opedfor instance the chamilion changes colors not just for camoflage, but also for defense and mood changes, it has been co-oped Of course, but you are assuming that such a feature could have developed in order to beat out its competitors.
this is the thing, mutation being random as we see it means, that they will be born with it and if its an advantage it will survive, if its not they won't, bigger horns on a deer, means the deer spreads the genes for bigger horns, this is just pure logic on both a mental level and a physical one
Are you telling me that an octopus is slow and cumbersome and needed some other defense/offense to evade from predators and to catch prey? Again, you're just making this up as you go. You have no way of knowing any of this. This is exactly what the ToE is based upon. Its based on the plausibility of something rather than anything of substance. They'll note that mutations happen and so does natural selection and by adding them together, voil, sympatric speciation.
this is all science, you arn't looking at how it works, just what we get from the conclusion. physics works just like this, a logical theory, that is backed up by evidence this is how all theories work, they combine an explination for mechanics into a structure. i'm confused why you still don't understand this is how science theories work ie:i prepose this;i test this; or find evidence or not of this; so its how it works until something can be shown to be otherwise
It would certainly seem to have to if evolution is true.
according to all the evidence it is
If we conducted some freaky Nazi-Germany experiments on dogs where we raised them in total darkness for their entire lives, for say, 10 generations, would their acuteness to darkness increase or would they eventually develop sonar or some derivative of that? Small adaptations can and do occur. I fully concur. And some animals are better suited to their environment. An Arctic fox is obviously going to fare better than a red fox in a snowy environment. Or when we look at the Great White shark, we can note that its underbelly is white so that anything underneath can't see it that well. When we look at the dorsal portion of the fish it is a darker color making it more difficult to see from below. Its predation instincts compel it to feed primarily from diving deep then driving itself forward to attack the prey. Was that design or selective pressures? I don't know. Perhaps a bit of both. But we are talking about monumental changes here with the other three organisms I listed. There is a vast difference.
not 10 generations, not even 100, think a lot more zeros, and try to think something less absurd, they would over a long time, gain acute senses of smell or hearing and overtime lose the ability to see.just like blind-cave fish the thing is the enviriment has to filter them, us making say odd shaped dogs is close, but it has to be a long time There are limitations to how far any organism can adapt. If you think about it, there has to be. You can see such limitations with the advent of dog breeding. We all know that a pure breed carries less information than wild phenotype. Generalized, wild stock has a greater propensity than an isolated, specialized one. The greater the influence of this specialized sub-population becomes, the more it thins out the wilds with the most genetic variability because it swamps the mongrel stock with purebreds. The ability for variation is actually depleting with every successive generation, not becoming more suitable overall. We all know this intuitively, which is why such a high stress on mutations to save the day. The only problem is, they don't save anything-- they kill without impunity.
please show this, this just seems like you just don't want to accept the possiblity its not truethe reason dogs are like that is, people breed dogs with a small gene pool, brothers with sisters and fathers and daughters, its not the same thing if say you had two groups that had well diverse genes this might work better you just basically killed your own argument, a captive group will be less diverse than a wild one, theres no question of this dogs make a terrible argument since we control the gene population and breed them too close togather for good genesthis is nothing like NS or how the ToE works. Edited by ReverendDG, : posting at 3-4 in the morning is not advised
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
We all know that the ID PR machine insists that ID is non-religious - despite the evidence to the contrary - the evidence that NJ seems reluctant to address.
Here's some more. Casey Luskin gets rather upset about the idea that the IDEA clubs were considered a religious organisation.
Casey Luskin writes
Obviously the word "ministry" implies we are a religious organization. Let me say that I was very shocked to see this wording, and as soon as I just read over the PandasThumb thread and found out about all this, I e-mailed Sondra Lantzer, a staff member at the church hosting the conference, and I asked her to change it to: "Co-president of the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center, a non-profit organization focused on helping students to understand and debate intelligent design theory." The latter is an accurate description of what we are. I don't think it is fair to call us a "ministry" because quite frankly, we spend the vast majority of our time talking about scientific issues and a very small minority of our time talking about religious matters. When IDEA Clubs form, we encourage them to register as educational organizations because that is what they are: they host debate forums where people can have friendly, informed, and informal discussion about ID and evolution with individuals of various viewpoints. SO they wouldn't be explciitly liinked to Christianity, would they ?
Think again. The IDEA clubs used to require that their officers were Christians. When that became embarrasing they changed the rules. To add a requirement that the officers support the mission statement that included a belief that the Designer was the Christian God. Of course they wouldn't have left things unchanged - but there is still evidence lying around:
Our Beliefs
And because of religious reasons unrelated to intelligent design theory, IDEA Center Leadership believes that the identity of the designer is the God of the Bible.
And there is a curious attempt to justify the non-discussion over the age of the Earth.
The age of the earth is not an issue related to intelligent design theory, nor is it necessarily even related to the validity of evolutionary theory, nor is it even related to the validity of religions, including Christianity
Why would the validity of Christianty be a concern ? A Young Earth would provide a strong case against evoutionary theory so why is it not relevant on that score ? Or is it because the IDEA Club wants to include YECs but doesn't want to endores Young Earth beliefs ? Why would a non-religious organisation that wants to promote science not just admit that science shows that the Earth is very old, and that Young Earth beliefs are religious ? A desire to pander to YECs ? Is the fact that YEC John Baumgardner is on the IDEA Cliub "Advisory Board" relevant by any chance ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22393 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Clark writes: Also, Ed Brayton’s treatment of the issue demonstrates how the judge is quoting verbatim from the findings of fact of the plaintiff, because their findings of fact are true. There are only so many ways to say something. If the plaintiff says that, “ID is, in fact, based on a false dichotomy,” how else should the judge express this? In his own words? I don't accept that, "There are only so many ways to say something." I can accept efficiency as a motivation, but not limits to expression, because they're aren't any. Language is infinitely expressive and nuanced. First let me state that I now understand that the plaintiffs and defendants *want* the judge to include their findings verbatim in his ruling, and that therefore Judge Jones did not commit plagiarism or anything remotely resembling it. My apologies. So let me instead use plagiarism as a point of departure. Legal and moral issues are one way to argue against plagiarism, but there's a much better one: you only really know you understand something when you can express it in your own words. I am no longer as convinced as I once was that Judge Jones fully understands the evidence and rationale behind his ruling. Maybe he does, but since the words aren't his I can't be sure of that, and for me that weakens the power of his ruling. AbE: Now I find myself suddenly questioning the inspired ruling from Judge Overton in the Arkansas case of a couple decades ago. Is that just a rewrite of ACLU findings, too? --Percy Edited by Percy, : Add closing comment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22393 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Hi NJ,
I'm responding to the important points I took from your last few messages in this single message:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22393 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Hi Nosy,
Though I'm replying to you, this is actually addressed to NJ. Hi NJ, Here's a quote of George Weber of the Biologic Instituted taken from Ned's link (Intelligent design: The God Lab):
George Weber writes: We are the first ones doing what we might call lab science in intelligent design. Consider, NJ, the implications. IDists evidently think this is the proper order of events when doing science:
Step 1: Lobby school boards, legislatures and text book publishers for representation of ID. Step 2: Carry out research to uncover evidence supportive of ID. This is the reason you're having so much difficulty finding scientific evidence for ID: it doesn't exist yet. I wonder where the Biologic Institute plans to submit their papers. Unless they submit them to legitimate scientific journals, it'll be just the same-old, same-old. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Axe was named in the Wedge document as one of the people who was supposed to be doing the science. He did publish a couple of papers cited by IDists as supporting ID - but they didn't.
And so far as I know that's it. The Behe and Snokes paer was purely theoretical - and also failed to support ID. The infamous Meyer paper was just a review - no new research at all. (Added)Ed Brayton comments here Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
AbE: Now I find myself suddenly questioning the inspired ruling from Judge Overton in the Arkansas case of a couple decades ago. Is that just a rewrite of ACLU findings, too? Unfortunately, the transcript of that case was lost. There is however considerable material at McLean v. Arkansas Documentation Project Edited by jar, : change subtitle Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Barbara Forrest comments on the Kitzmiller case
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 2996 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
Maybe you would like to try answering some of the questions the Lord posed to Job in Chapters 38-41.
After being thoroughly humbled, Job responded in 42:2, "I know that You can do anything and no plan of Yours can be thwarted." Yes, there was a fall, and life that exists after the fall is not what the Lord intended it to be. That's why the Lord is in the redemption business. The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
john writes: Maybe you would like to try answering some of the questions the Lord posed to Job in Chapters 38-41. job writes: Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set,or who laid its cornerstone The earth foundations? measuring line? cornerstone?.. This is man impersonating God. Sorry you believe that. Make no mistake I am humbled by the creation but I think the OT does a lousy job (excuse the pun) describing the creator.
john writes: Yes, there was a fall, and life that exists after the fall is not what the Lord intended it to be. Please answer, and not with poetry, is the Guinea Worm designed by the intelligent designer? If not, then how do we determine what is intelligent designed and what is not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
George Weber writes: We are the first ones doing what we might call lab science in intelligent design. Think of it. The Intelligent Design club is now justing starting to do some "lab science" but they want the principles taught in schools prior to doing any "lab science". And they think the conventional scientific establishment is arrogant.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024