Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
100 online now:
nwr (1 member, 99 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,180 Year: 6,292/6,534 Month: 485/650 Week: 23/232 Day: 23/28 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Meyer's Hopeless Monster
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 207 (141393)
09-10-2004 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Percy
09-08-2004 2:25 PM


quote:
Percy:
Sternberg is probably just carrying on the longstanding Creationist tradition of lying for God.

Anything to support that claim- I know Stenberg isn't a creationist, but what lies are you talking about?

quote:
Percy:
This is just the type of fluffery Creationists always engage in.

But the Discovery Institute isn't a creationit organization. Now who is telling lies?

quote:
Percy:
If Sternberg is telling the truth about the reviewers, which I doubt given BSOW's recent statement, then they were carefully selected scientists known to him who share his ID beliefs. Clearly they were not on any established BSOW review board, because they would have immediately noted that the subject matter was not appropriate for the proceedings.

That is a baseless assertion.

from http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40302

However, National Center for Biotechnology Information staff scientist Richard Sternberg told The Scientist the three peer reviewers of Meyer's paper "all hold faculty positions in biological disciplines at prominent universities and research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, one at a major U.S. public university, and another at a major overseas research institute."

All found the paper "meritorious, warranting publication," he said.

Moreover, Sternberg told the journal he and Meyer have falsely been labeled creationists by the scientific community, noting: "It's fascinating how the 'creationist' label is falsely applied to anyone who raises any questions about neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. The reaction to the paper by some [anti-creationist] extremists suggests that the thought police are alive and well in the scientific community."

Then Percy goes on to to say that the areticle isn't science but offers no specifics. Very typical of an evolutionist whose very theory they support is void of specifics and full of generalizations.

BTW Percy ID and Creation are not the same. No amount of whining and misrepresentation can change that fact.


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Percy, posted 09-08-2004 2:25 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2004 12:21 PM ID man has replied
 Message 22 by Coragyps, posted 09-10-2004 12:27 PM ID man has replied
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 09-10-2004 1:44 PM ID man has replied
 Message 30 by Silent H, posted 09-11-2004 5:37 AM ID man has not replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 207 (141399)
09-10-2004 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by PaulK
09-10-2004 12:21 PM


quote:
Paul K:
Sternberg is a creationist. We have adequate evidence of that.

What is this alleged evidence? Why would he state that he isn't a Creationist? Most/ all Creationists I know are proud to proclaim what they are.

quote:
PaulK:
We also know that he circumvented the editorial procedures to sneak a pro-ID paper into an inappropriate journal.

How do you know that? How do you know who is telling the truth?

quote:
PaulK:
It is no great stretch to suspect that he may also have chosen reviewers likely to give the paper a pass regardless of merit.

Given that you can't support your claims why should anyone believe you?


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2004 12:21 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2004 1:17 PM ID man has replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 207 (141400)
09-10-2004 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Coragyps
09-10-2004 12:27 PM


quote:
Coragyps:
ID is creationism with explicit Bible references carefully excised, so that the same ol' pap can be snuck into public school curricula.

That would be a blatant misrepresentation of reality. Funny how evolutionists always revert to that. ID is not creation or creationism. IDists understand that, Creationists understand that. Leave it to the anti people to try to label one as the other. What a bunch of whining crybabies evolutionistrs have evolved into.

BTW do NOT edit my quotes by adding someting that wasn't there. That is bad form indeed.

This message has been edited by ID man, 09-10-2004 12:04 PM


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Coragyps, posted 09-10-2004 12:27 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Wounded King, posted 09-10-2004 1:14 PM ID man has not replied
 Message 26 by Coragyps, posted 09-10-2004 1:14 PM ID man has replied
 Message 28 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2004 1:36 PM ID man has replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 207 (141531)
09-11-2004 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Coragyps
09-10-2004 1:14 PM


Sorry Coragyps but ID is not creation. The two are patently different. IDists understand the difference. Creationists understand the difference. Why is then ONLY their opponents choose to conflate the two?

Young* Earth Creation:

1) There was a sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from God.

2) Mutations and natural selection are insufficient to bring about the development of all living things from a single organism.

3) Changes in the originally created kinds of plants and animals occur within fixed limits.

4) There is a separate ancestry for humans and apes.

5) The earth’s geology can be explained via catastrophism, primarily by the occurrence of a worldwide flood.

6) The earth and all living kinds had a relatively recent origin (on the order of 10,000 years ago).

(* There are creationists who believe in an old earth. They argue over the length of a day in Genesis. Are the first few days in Genesis actually eras?)

ID: pg. 92

1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of past intelligent design.

2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanation for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add more blank line in listed items. Eliminated bolding of listed items.


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Coragyps, posted 09-10-2004 1:14 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Peter, posted 09-13-2004 7:36 AM ID man has replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 207 (141532)
09-11-2004 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Percy
09-10-2004 1:44 PM


quote:
Percy:
I can't adopt a different vocabulary for each person I debate with, so I'm going to continue to use Creationism to refer to the collection of proposals from the fundamentalist Christian community concerning origins. Whether it's old earth Creationism, young earth Creationism, flood theory, vapor canopy theory, hydroplate theory or intelligent design, I will continue to refer to them collectively as Creationism. ID is just one strategy, the most recent, as it happens, of the fundamentalist Christian community to get Creationism represented in public school curriculums.

Then I would have to conclude that you are confused at best and willfully misrepresenting at worst. What is your evidence that ID is a fundy christian strategy? I am a Budhist. Even AiG knows that ID is not creation. If what you said were true, and it is not, then AiG would embrace ID 100%.

quote:
Percy:
Naturally IDists want to distance themselves from the Creationist label, but even within a perspective that holds IDists separate from Creationists, Sternberg still accepts and promotes a view that has found acceptance only in the fundamentalist Christian community, a view which has no scientific support at this time.

Tell that to the scientists present and past who see (saw) plenty of evidence for design. All you have shown so far is that you can twist and spin with the best of them.

The paper in question passed peer-review. Now you want to argue semantics. Who cares what others on the board think. If they were qualified they could have been involved with the review process.

quote:
Percy:
So the facts we have so far are:

Editor Sternberg went against the journals stated purpose by including the article in the proceedings. From the above link:
"The paper by Stephen C. Meyer in the Proceedings ("The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239) represents a significant departure from the nearly purely taxonomic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 124-year history."

Merely by including a non-taxonomic article he was violating the Proceedings established focus.

The article was published without the knowledge of key officers of the BSOW (see prior quote above).

Sternberg states that the article was peer-reviewed, yet the officers of the BSOW knew nothing about it.

Sternberg has resigned.


That is a big SO WHAT? to all 5 points. Do officers on Nature get involved with its peer-review process?

Again, you the liar, has accused Sternberg of lying.


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 09-10-2004 1:44 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 09-11-2004 11:58 AM ID man has not replied
 Message 42 by lfen, posted 09-11-2004 3:12 PM ID man has not replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 207 (141533)
09-11-2004 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by PaulK
09-10-2004 1:36 PM


quote:
PaulK:
If ID is not creationism perhaps you can explain why Steve Jones was asked to leave the ID movement ?

I am not privy to that, nor do I care.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wish to announce that I have left the ID movement, my position having become increasingly untenable, due to my advocacy of of common ancestry within ID, it being finally suggested by Phil Johnson that I leave.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But Dr. Behe also believes in common descent. He states that in his book and elsewhere. So I would conclude there are other reasons Steve was asked to leave.

quote:
PaulK:
If species are not related by common ancestry then how does Intelligent Design explain where they come from ?

ID doesn't say that. Organisms could be related by common descent under ID, that is if that is what the evidence shows. What ID does say is the diversity arose via pre-programmed instructions, as opposed to nature acting alone as in NS acting on RM.

What happens when we understand that the evidence does not point to some single LUCA (last universal common ancestor), as some scientists already are suggesting?


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2004 1:36 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by NosyNed, posted 09-11-2004 12:44 PM ID man has not replied
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 09-11-2004 3:49 PM ID man has replied
 Message 45 by jar, posted 09-11-2004 4:58 PM ID man has not replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 207 (141535)
09-11-2004 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by PaulK
09-10-2004 1:17 PM


quote:
PaulK:
Sternebrg is on the editorial board of the Baraminology Study Group - a Young Earth Creationist organisation.

That does not make him a creationist. Baraminology could very well be the future of biology. It shows he has an open mind.

Sorry Paul but I will go with Sternberg on this one. He has no reason to deny he is a Creationist, yet he does just that. That means he is not a Creationist. It is that simple.


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2004 1:17 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 09-11-2004 12:19 PM ID man has not replied
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 09-11-2004 3:57 PM ID man has not replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 207 (141536)
09-11-2004 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nic Tamzek
08-25-2004 9:56 PM


quote:
Perhaps one day the scientific community will be convinced that ID is worthwhile.

Remove "scientific community" and replace it with "materialistic naturalists". What is this allged "scientific community"? IDists and Creationists both have scientists on their respective sides. Are they part of that community? Would Sir Isaac be part of that community? How about Pasteur? Kepler? Galileo? Aristotle?

Maybe this alleged community will publish something that would falsify ID. I doubt it as it appears they can't support their premise but can only criticize all opposing ideas.


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nic Tamzek, posted 08-25-2004 9:56 PM Nic Tamzek has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by jar, posted 09-11-2004 11:10 AM ID man has not replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 207 (142012)
09-13-2004 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by PaulK
09-11-2004 3:49 PM


quote:
PaulK:
Yet obviously ID does NOT accept universal common descent since declaring a belief in it is incompatible with membership of the ID movement.

Reality refutes you. Dr. Behe accepts it. He states as much in his book Darwin's Black Box and in articles posted on the Discovery Institute's website.

quote:

[Eugenie]Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God." Where I and others run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology is not invisible, it is empirically detectable. The biological literature is replete with statements like David DeRosier's in the journal Cell: "More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human" (1). Exactly why is it a thought-crime to make the case that such observations may be on to something objectively correct? (emphasis added)

OK let's see PaulK spin that...


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 09-11-2004 3:49 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2004 10:54 AM ID man has replied
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 09-13-2004 5:36 PM ID man has replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 207 (142014)
09-13-2004 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Peter
09-13-2004 7:36 AM


quote:
ID: pg. 92
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of past intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanation for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

Peter:
1-3 are unsupported assumptions, and the conclusion in 4 is
simply a opinion based upon those unsupported assumptions.


The assertions are supported. They are supported by our current level of knowledge. Every time we see something with a high information content, specified complexity or is IC it is always due to an intelligent agency. Also we have never observed nature acting alone do such. Therefore 1-3 are supported.


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Peter, posted 09-13-2004 7:36 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Loudmouth, posted 09-13-2004 6:39 PM ID man has replied
 Message 68 by Peter, posted 09-14-2004 11:44 AM ID man has not replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 207 (142029)
09-13-2004 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by PaulK
09-13-2004 10:54 AM


quote:
PaulK:
There's no need to spin it.

So you admit you are wrong?

quote:
PaulK:
There are plenty of possible explanations, not least the fact that Behe's departure would be very damaging.

Let us hear some of those expalnations and please support them.

quote:
PaulK:
And the ID movement is all about politics, PR and spin.

The reality is that ID is all about finding out the reality to our existence. And then understanding that reality. Period.

quote:
PaulK:
Let us also point out that Behe sees acceptance of common descent as the issue which distinguishes him from creationists. Where then do we place a movement which rejects common descent ?

In the Creation camp, which shows that ID is NOT Creation.


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2004 10:54 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2004 11:36 AM ID man has replied
 Message 58 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2004 5:26 PM ID man has not replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 207 (142308)
09-14-2004 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by PaulK
09-13-2004 11:36 AM


quote:
PaulK:
No, I don't admit that I am wrong.

Of course you won't. That is how you and your ilk operate. You see the facts and ignore them because they interfer with your agenda.

quote:
PaulK:
Because you have offered no evidence that I am wrong.

Now you are lying.

quote:
PaulK:
As I say Behe's departure would be too politically damaging for the ID movement to simply ask him to leave for endorsing common descent.

That is nothing but an unsupported assertion. But evis are known for those.

quote:
PaulK:
And since you agree that rejection of common descent places ID in the creation camp you have to deal with Steve Jones' departure from the ID movement - according to Jones over that very issue.

That is NOT what I agreed to. You have again proven you are a low-life loser. Go seek help- quick.

This message has been edited by ID man, 09-14-2004 08:42 AM


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2004 11:36 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2004 10:14 AM ID man has not replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 207 (142310)
09-14-2004 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Percy
09-13-2004 5:36 PM


ID is not Creation
http://http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=25&t=247&p=3

What usual players? Do I see Ham? Do I see Sarfati? Do I see Morris? Nope. No Creationists behind the curtain.

What are the options on how life and the universe came to be? How did nature come to be?

You and your ilk can call ID whatever you want. It just exposes your ignorance. It is like saying republicans are democrats and democrats are republicans. ID and Creation may have similarities but they also have differences. They both have things in common with the theory of evolution. Bottom line is that if you could provide positive evidence for your faith neither ID or Creation would have come about.

The problem with your post is that it is mere assertion. It doesn't face the facts.


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 09-13-2004 5:36 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Percy, posted 09-14-2004 11:46 AM ID man has not replied
 Message 70 by Percy, posted 09-14-2004 12:11 PM ID man has replied
 Message 71 by mark24, posted 09-14-2004 12:28 PM ID man has not replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 207 (142312)
09-14-2004 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Loudmouth
09-13-2004 6:39 PM


quote:
Loudmouth:
Your statement is too general, given the observations. It should be "Every time we see something with a high information content, specified complexity or is IC it is always due to an intelligent agent THAT IS PART OF THE NATURAL REALM."

True, but we know that nature acting alone didn't do it. And it does not rule out a supernatural entity becoming part of the natural world and then designing life.

quote:
Loudmouth:
Therefore, life had to originate naturally somewhere, and this rules out the possibility that life can only arise through an intelligent agent.

It depends on what you call "naturally". Also you have yet to provide any evidence that life could arise from non-life by natyre acting alone. In fact the more we know the less likely it becomes.

Dean Kenyon was one of the front-runners for putting forth theories of the origins of life. Now he is an IDist.


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Loudmouth, posted 09-13-2004 6:39 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by jar, posted 09-14-2004 9:59 AM ID man has not replied
 Message 72 by Loudmouth, posted 09-14-2004 12:36 PM ID man has not replied

  
ID man
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 207 (142704)
09-16-2004 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nic Tamzek
08-25-2004 9:56 PM


a response to Meyer's critics
From Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke, and Wesley R. Elsberry:

quote:
Meyer's paper predictably follows the same pattern that has characterized "intelligent design" since its inception: deny the sufficiency of evolutionary processes to account for life's history and diversity, then assert that an "intelligent designer" provides a better explanation. Although ID is discussed in the concluding section of the paper, there is no positive account of "intelligent design" presented, just as in all previous work on "intelligent design". Just as a detective doesn't have a case against someone without motive, means, and opportunity, ID doesn't stand a scientific chance without some kind of model of what happened, how, and why. Only a reasonably detailed model could provide explanatory hypotheses that can be empirically tested. "An unknown intelligent designer did something, somewhere, somehow, for no apparent reason" is not a model.

The premise is false in that ID has presented the positive evidence for its case. The case is in the literature I have posted as well as other essays, articles and books.

We can detect design by the coming together of separate parts or components in an ordered way in such a functional system is formed that is dependent upon the order and those individual parts or components. With the bacterial flagellum not only is a functioning system formed but the energy to drive it is supplied as is the ability (or even knowledge how) to use it, which requires a communication link. So far the only alleged pre-cursor to the bacterial flagellum, the type III secretory system, has been shown to be if anything an offshoot of the BF. Yet here we have all these proteins that come together as if they were instructed to do so, just like we see parts come together to form a product in automated factories, and the vocal minority won’t allow science to infer ID. It is only a matter of time before that minority gets put in its place.

BTW, we can’t deny what has yet to be shown. IOW if you could show your process was sufficient odds are we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

However we can compare- what is the positive evidence that natural selection acting on random variations or mutations can do what evolutionists assert it can? IOW what is the positive evidence that a bacterial flagellum can arise by nature acting alone? What is the positive evidence for asexual and sexual reproduction arising by nature acting alone? What we will find, as with endo-symbiosis and the alleged origins of eukaryotes, is that what is being looked for has to be assumed in the first place. IOW Dr. Margulis started with the assumption that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes and then fit her observance to that assumption. The same can be said of the alleged evolution of metazoans. Then these guys have the audacity to mention details. LoL! The theory of evolution is void of details. The ‘why’ in the theory of evolution is what? The theory of evolution can only speculate based on the assumption. How can we falsify the theory of evolution? What is the empirical test to show that euks. evolved from proks.?

“An unintelligent, non-guiding force did something, somewhere, somehow, for no apparent reason” is not a model.

"The neo-Darwinian concept of random variation carries with it the major fallacy that everything conceivable is possible" Ho and Saunders.

BTW detectives do not require a motive to solve a case. Many times the motive is unclear until after the case is solved.

The double-standards in the first paragraph alone would give any rational person caution for the contents of the rest of the paper.


"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nic Tamzek, posted 08-25-2004 9:56 PM Nic Tamzek has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by PaulK, posted 09-16-2004 11:49 AM ID man has replied
 Message 94 by Percy, posted 09-16-2004 11:50 AM ID man has replied
 Message 102 by Ooook!, posted 09-16-2004 2:39 PM ID man has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022