Intelligent Design Creationism

the huge resolution pictures in proper perspective are even less convincing, btw. here's one such picture: http://www.msss.com/...1/face/face_E03-00824_proc_50perc.gif (warning, VERY large, about 6mb)here's the bad astronomy page on it: Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions: Face to Face anyhow. back on topic. id is a combination of this principle of seeing false order and that of an argument from ignorance. "i don't know how this could have happened" and "it didn't happen" are two very different arguments.the old finding a watch argument is the funniest, in my mind, because it actually predates darwins first publication. it turns out "the origin of species" was actually in answer to that very argument.

don't forget vladimir lenin in the shower curtain! that's truly the best such image i have ever seen. it's artistic even! (courtesy of BadAstronomy.com)the irony is that this looks far more intelligently designed than biology does. i mean it looks like something! really! ...but did god put lenin in phil plait's shower curtain? if god likes lenin... i might have to convert to atheism.

roflmao.that made my day.

it's nice to romantically look at things and declare them miracles and testaments to god.but tell me a few years down the line if it has your eyes or your wife's. whose nose does it have? lips? hair? maybe not yours, maybe your father's, or your wife's uncle...see, that's genetics. alleles. from one generation to the next. which, i do believe is the definition of biological evolution, one generation at a time.although, if it looks nothing like either of you, or anyone in your family, maybe it's something in favor of special creation, one generation at a time. although, usually, the explanation is far more banal and heartbreaking.

i'll refrain from taking the obvious shot here, because making fun of premature babies is just not cool. however, congratulations, and i'm glad they're both ok. um, that IS evolution. really, that's it. how many times have run a mile? more than 26?no one is arguing it all happened at once, except the creationists.and uh, we also have a bunch of transitional species from land mammals to whales and dolphins and such. i'm actually quite proud to own a vertebrea of one. yes, that 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=2. where is the glass barries that prevents addition from, you know, adding? things can change a little... but not a lot! lots of little things can't possibly add up to big things!

you hear about the easter island study they did that showed that primitive natives couldn't possibly have raised the big statues? i saw a bunch of scientists competeing for an explanation with logs and ropes and cranes and ditches and such.they came to a conclusion: it was damned near impossible.well, until the natives showed them.it's kind of like the crop circle argument. people can't possibly make these without helicopters and cad programs and complex instrumentation. them some locals with a board, some sticks, and a lot of string sent them a video.

have you read behe's book, then? so far i haven't seen a single example that hasn't been disproved. including the mousetrap.he changed his definition of ic outside the context of the book to mean that overall system doesn't work, even though subsystems (which he's supposedly concerned with) still function perfectly. even with that change in definition, his blood clotting example is disproved by the existance of dolphins, who are missing one of his neccessary components. no, evolution very often does NOT happen "step by tiny step." often, steps are cumulative, and features and subsystems are borrowed and adapted to new uses. this often produces whole new features in single generations. such as been observed, and proven with theoretical models in labs. evolutionary algorithms consistently develop ic systems. how does behe answer that? show me one. remember, no working subsystems, otherwise i'll just remove everything but the subsystem and it'll still work. prove it. i found behe's philosophical rambling towards the end there a little unsatisfactory. actually, come to think of it, even behe admitted that it can't be proven.

uh, no. i just didn't actually provide the quote. but i will now.in regards to deleting all but the type-3 secretory system of a bacterial flagellum:

quote:

---

For some reason that I was trying to say before, the function of the system is to be a rotary whip and to propel the bacterium or to [...]push liquid over top of it. This does not have that function.

---

and in regards to other uses for mouse-trap parts:

quote:

---

[...] the system itself has a function. The mousetrap [...] can catch mice. [...] If you take apart the mousetrap [...] you can [...] hammer the mousetrap to your door and use it as a doorknocker, or something like that. So, but [...] the point is that the system itself is not functional.

---

the "uhhs" have been editted out by "[...]" to be fair, since this was a debate, and he was apparently pretty nervous. a transcript can be found here.so yes. he changed his definition. non-functional now means that it cannot have another function. since you have a copy of behe's book, turn to page 48 and tell me what he says about why systems with subsystems cannot be used to demonstrate ic. no, this is an argument from incredulity. i've seen a number of experiments that use a computer programmed with evolutionary algoriths that ROUTINELY created systems behe would have called irreducibly complex. here is one such study. maybe we're reading a different bible. mine says this:

quote:

---

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

---

and

quote:

---

Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

---

quote:

---

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

---

it keeps saying things like "let the earth bring forth" hmm. what could that be talking about? it seems the process by which god makes things is by having the earth produce them. i think hovind had better think his "i don't believe i come from a rock" argument. indeed, the verb in verse 27, when god creates man, seems to be describing a process in hebrew. disproof of genesis as a literal historical account is totally unrelated to biology. we have enough geologic and historical records to totally negate that. on top of that, i doubt darwin, a catholic, was trying to do anything the of sort.besides the fact that ic systems are actually a predicted result of evolutionary theory. what in god's name are you talking about? i don't see how you can use any verse in romans to justify creationism. but, if you're going to, let's at least get the author right. romans was written by the apostle paul. the same woman-hating, gay-hating, judgemental bastard that seems to have neglected almost everything christ was actually about. paul is hardly god. i wouldn't even call his letters "inspired." one christian to another. ok, please provide a brief description of the mechanism which prevents small changes from being cumulative. the micro/macro distinction is something creationists simply made up, because they can't deny it happens when you observe it, but they don't like the idea of the whole thing. in reality, all steps are small. all evolution is "micro" evolution.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 07-21-2004 12:53 AM

no, i quoted him. did you miss that? did you read the page i told you to read? looking it up again, i suppose it's on 38, not 48. my bad. and i won't address your point until you address mine, that creation process is god saying something, and earth (nature) responding.who cares what perakh said? as far as i can, he's just pointing out that behe doesn't understand probability. dawkins does the same thing, and he wrote before behe made his argument. you're arguing in circles.here's the next step. i say "show me the evidence of god" and you say "irreducibly complexity" and i say "here's the refutation of that that has nothing to do with probability"what do you want? i posted a study that show evolutionary algorithms producing complex systems. i posted evidence that behe's argument is full of crap by his own words. you want the quotes again? behe says that other ic arguments are

quote:

---

vulnerable because he mistakes an integrated system of systems for a single system

---

quote:

---

The mousetrap [...] can catch mice. [...] If you take apart the mousetrap [...] you can [...] hammer the mousetrap to your door and use it as a doorknocker, or something like that. So, but [...] the point is that the system itself is not functional.

---

these are behe's own words. not mine. i'm not making this stuff up.look at that argument for a second. of COURSE the system itself is nonfunctional. that's not the definition of ic, that's the definition of ANY system. take away its parts, it doesn't work. an ic system, instead, according to pages 38 and 39 has to be a system WITHOUT functioning subsystems. otherwise, it's just a collection of smaller systems, like his stereo example. reading along yet? chapter and verse. i don't recall the bible ever having said anything about evolution, at all. but then again, i'm not real keen on stuff paul wrote. i'm glad that you've finally come out an admitted that. because i am, in fact, a christian. and what you wrote has hardly a defense of his authority.simply put, paul projects a lot of ideals that aren't christian. one of which, as you pointed out, was judgement. if paul was a christian, well, i am too. and he does saying things like women cannot be saved except by giving birth, and they should shuttup, stay at home, and do dishes at such. i translated the greek on that one myself to be sure. and that hardly sounds like something christ would say. if you recall, christ was the one who gave women -- even prostitutes -- a chance, and respect, when no one else did. no, i'm a christian who's actually read the bible, and who thinks for himself, and can spot inconsistencies in doctrine. and uhh, it's quite the educated opinion, actually. perhaps you should read more of what he wrote, and see if you can spot the contradictions with christ's teachings. actually, the nazi's were intensely christian. so were the crusaders. and the kkk. in fact, i think christianity has been the driving force behind alot more violence than any other single force in history. you might want to watch silly arguments like that.and for the record, social darwin existed before darwin did. darwin never suggested that selection should be applied to humans; he simply observed what happened in nature. the social darwinists attempted to use darwinian theory to justify their already racist position, and adopted the name.

actually, you ignored the assertions about the kkk, aryan nation (officially called the "church of jesus christ, christian" btw), the holocaust, the crusades, etc.and which slander? mine? it's not slander if it's true. paul speaks out against gay people, effeminite people, and women, as if they were children of a lesser god. he sits in judgement, and judgement is not his. he even says that women can only be saved by childbirth.

which chestnut?

oh. i see.yeah, that was pretty lame. luckily, about five of us had the stock answer prepared! lol.