Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   10 Categories of Evidence For ID
zyncod
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 147 (207628)
05-13-2005 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-12-2005 6:34 PM


Hi-
Thanks for the welcome.
The entropy and therefore the disorganization has increased. You have lost information.
I looked under 'Boltzmann,' 'information,' and 'entropy,' and I found no indication that information and entropy are opposites. In fact, by common sense, the opposite would seem to be true. To continue the example of the (simpler than sugar) salt crystal, to define the position of the Na/Cl ions would be simpler in the undissolved state. To define the positions of Na/Cl ions in a crystal (no matter how large), you could simply state "each Na+ ion is surrounded by 6 Cl- ions at a distance of X angstroms, and each Cl- ion is surrounded by 6 Na+ ions of X angstroms," and define the dimensions of the crystal. To define the positions of the ions in the more entropically (word?) stable dissolved salt, you would have to individually state the position of each ion within the solute (a LOT more information).
In fact, you seem to be agreeing with me on this.
I apologize. Apparently, we are in agreement that DNA can be synthesized from scratch in labs without primers.
Oh I can imagine a lot of things, doesn't necessarily give it any credibility in science. How do you know this is CSI? You are going to have to calculate it out to show this. And you think that replication is the definition of life?
Again, apologies. I should not have brought speculative ideas based upon evolutionary theory into this particular forum (unless you want to discuss the link between extant ribozymes and possible self-replicating extinct ribozymes). However, I do believe that any "CSI" algorithm would see the HIV genome as CSI, whether it was in DNA or RNA form.
I would explain this for you, but you base the entire question on a false conception of ID.
And yet again, apologies. I should have stated that "ID theory supposes that there is a function for every NON-MUTATED (since time of creation) base pair in the genome."
No it can't. There is no such thing as evolutionary theory as you have taken nothing through the scientific method TO the theory level.
Fine. For argument's sake, let's take "evolutionary theory" as "evolutionary hypothesis" (and please don't take offense at my refusal to use the word 'Darwinism'- equate your 'Darwinism' with my 'evolution'). So I'm not going to restate my arguments - just take 'theory' as hypothesis.
There is no such thing as a theory of ID
As an aside, I hope that, from a scientific standpoint, you know what this statement means.
Lower life progressed to more complex life, both plant and animal, over time. At a given point in time vitamin C became quite prevalent in the diet as it is today. Now am I going to have to bring an argument to you that some plants today are rich in vitamin C like I had to with the other one I was recently discussing this with? No? Thank you.
When this C became available in the diet, omnivores that ingested this C no longer needed to systemically produce C and natural selection caused this mutation. And in what organisms would this environment have selected for? ALL of them, people, chimps, gorillas, little funky tree monkeys, little monkin' tree.........So you are quite surprised to see this mutation in common with primates?
I'm not exactly sure what this argument entails - are you describing an argument that I might use ('lower life progressed to more complex life') or your own argument? I am responding to it as if it were your own argument.
If NS could cause fixation of the specific mutated allele of the vitamin C gene in all (separately created yet said to be evolutionarily related) primate species (according to ID), why would it not fix the allele in similar species (ie, lemurs - similar morphology and diet)? Evolutionary "hypothesis" states that all primates share a common ancestor with the mutated vitamin C gene allele (which is incidentally called a pseudogene). That hypothesis predicts other pseudogenes between the "related" primate species, a prediction borne out by scientific study. ID predicts nothing as far as pseudogenes (which are essentially errors) go, between these species, as each species was admittedly independently designed. Since ID essentially predicts no useful information regarding biology (see my mouse/human remarks), why should it not be ignored? Taking as a given that ID is true, and yet evolutionary hypothesis explains a number of things in the field of biology, evolutionary hypothesis should primarily be used. An example would be that, as the (admittedly) wrong Newtonian physics take a back seat to the correct quantum physics in most calculations, since Newtonian physics makes useful predictions that quantum physics does not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-12-2005 6:34 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-13-2005 5:40 AM zyncod has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 77 of 147 (207635)
05-13-2005 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-12-2005 7:01 PM


I am not asking you questions for Dembski. I am asking you questions regarding your position and simply noting that they would be similar for him. Given that you just said that you and Dembski share a position against Behe on the nature of common descent, I am a bit confused by your sudden dismissal of being compared with Dembski.
So answer the question, what evidence do YOU have which shows that multiple creation events occured over the long stretch of life on earth, rather than one creation event followed by an unpacking of original coding which we would view as descent?
If this is your position, you do have evidence... right?
I don't oppose any positions Behe has in ID because common descent doesn't have a thing to do with ID.
The above is in direct contradiction to statements in your previous post...
Actually, that would be better stated as "some" IDists accept common descent. Behe, Gene and others are in the minority but they do exist. Dembski, Cordova, myself and others take an opposing view. There are several camps developing in ID just as there are your closed universalists verses your flat universalists, relativity gravitists verses graviton gravitists in physics, etc.
You need to clarify your position.
In any case Behe definitely states in Darwin's Black Box that "common descent" can be part of the ID model of speciation. I realize detection of design is different than models of speciation, but in order to be taught as a replacement model for speciation it will need that aspect and not just detection of design.
If IDs model of speciation is not common descent, then what is its model and what is the evidence for it, or how has it arranged evidence to show this?
I saw another one somewhere to me something to the effect that the second law no longer applies to chemical reactions in open system.
I did not say anything like that. You have already misread one post of mine and my assumption must be that you have misread another. My post was that 2LOT only acts as a hindrance to abiogenesis or genetic development within closed systems. In an open system 2LOT is not absent, but rather present and working for complex systems generating.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-12-2005 7:01 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 78 of 147 (207637)
05-13-2005 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-13-2005 12:21 AM


quote:
These are your words. I thought you asked me if I thought bacteria and viruses were the only thing evolving. I replied: "I'm not saying that bacteria and viruses are the only organisms evolving, they are just among them." My answer was no. So what is your beef with this? To me, it's you not making a lick of sense. All I'm saying here is that all organisms experience evolution. But you disagree with this? Then what magic aura do you assume cloaks a species to ward off evolution?
Besides getting suspended, you are remaining inconsistent. According to your, all genomes must degrade...yet bacteria and viruses show no sign of this (niether does the human genome but Ill get to it later). So you are inconsitent...either things are designed and degrade as you claim has to happen and have been harping on in your confused 2LOT arguements or you have found your supreme being in lamda phage...or are you the type that picks out what they want to see and ignores the inconsistencies?
quote:
A paper don't have to quote every single logical proposition that it adds substance to. Look at the math in that paper and then apply that math to the math we use to show evolving and devolving systems. We need go no further than that, my friend. Math speaks much more than words. If you Darwinists would learn this, you would all be IDists. Can you mathematically refute the math I threw out? No? Then your only choice seems to be to accept it or ignore it. The choice is yours.
There s a thread now dedicated to your math errors. But you still have not shown where the authors imply in any way the de-evolution of the genome. I will take your evasive answer as a concession that you do not understand the paper
quote:
I don't think I conflate anything--you're just playing with semantics. Darwinists embrace naturalism and espouse that life began on earth through natural processes and evolved into the present through natural processes. You know you agree with this, so why are you afraid to lump it all in together? It seems you are afraid to defend your beliefs. Ahem....excuse me, but I think I want to just defend half of my beliefs here, thank you.
This is a typical creationist response. If you conflate two different fields you demonstrate that you do not know the difference yourself. Do you know what the ToE is?
quote:
I don't have to test for anything. Science tells me this is all designed by preprogrammed code
Im sorry for you but science that does no testing will not tell you anything...this is why you fail. You do not know what science is. A non tested hypothesis is speculation and a non testable hypothesis is a fairy tale..like ID.
quote:
Yeah, hey: before you mega-scientists came along everyone thought that man was more closely related to bananas than chimps. You have revolutionized human knowledge here.
Actually, many people thought our closest relatives were gorillas or even orang-utans. But this demonstrates again that you have no working knowledge of the fields you are debating as the human-chimp-gorilla split work was exceptionally high profile work in molecular biology...look up Alan Wilson some time.
quote:
Really. Because if there is indeed any intelligence up the old family lineage, I would surely think it might use similar blueprints for similar critters. I'm sure this doesn't make much sense to you as you would conclude that an elephant SHOULD be more genotypically related to an acorn. Does this duck float in your world?
Why would a desinger keep using a similar design? There is no reason for this as if it is intelligent it can do whatever it wants to..there are after all, organisms with non-DNA genomes. Do you have supporting evidence or a testable hypothesis that would support this constraint?
quote:
It DOES require design in the form of preprogrammed code. If course, you don't think code is designed as you have failed to comment each time I have asked if you if you think Windows XP can just poof out of a rock. Let me help you here, Mr. biologist: Yes! I see no reason at all that Windows XP cannot just magically poof out of a sheep's ass. Now. I want the whole world to learn what your science really is. A fairy tale that no one with an IQ over 80 could ever take seriously. Nobody in this country does, and you have only Buffaloed yourself.
I don't think Windows XP and replicators are a valid comparison. And since I never claimed that a complex code was the original replicator it is really a nonsense question that reflects your own confusion. Your appeals to the number of people who are ignorant of science not accepting this or that are irrelvant. It just shows that there are lots of ignorant people in the US.
quote:
I need a model. I have given you one for design. You would EXPECT that some very simple replicators formed naturally and then grew over time? I don't see why you would expect this since it goes against everything science knows about simple molecules evolving over time into more complex ones. And give me some papers on the lab work or withdraw the comment. Not at all professional to present your opinion as an abstracted paper.
Since every time I have presented papers you have then cried like a spanked puppy that it is unfair of me to post papers that you cant get or the dog ate your homework or some such nonsense, you can go do your own homework. Again, their is a thread in the suggestions and questions forum addressing your unwillingness to access papers (which you shuold know about given your claims of knowledge). Resolve your issues and how you want information presented or else do your own homework.
quote:
Let's see these studies. I mean, I don't think that anyone will argue with you that genes... ahem...JUMP from parent to child. But how do the gene entities start suddenly jumping horizontally? Is there like a gene fairy that starts causing this? There's certainly nothing in biology that would cause genes to start jumping across things.
Same problem as above..if I post the relevant literature will you read it or just shrug it off? I actually do scientific work so will only spend a limited amount of time on your remedial biology education..and none if you will just outright evade argument and dismiss the data that exists because it conflicts with your opionion as you have been doing. I am really quite surprised that you do not know about any of these subjects and cannot list a few papers on your own on this subject. You said you would blow me away with science and when I summarize work that has been done (that my youngest students know by heart) you say you are unaware of the work and want to see it.
Are your really telling me you do not know what horizontal transfer is?
quote:
Then please "find" this form me...
what is the testable and falsifiable hypothesis of ID? I know why you are persistently avoiding this challenge..do you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Why?
Why? Because even you deep down recognize that you dont really know very much about science but are engaging in this argument because you are a creationist and are afraid science. Otherwise you would give a testable and falsifiable hypothesis of ID

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-13-2005 12:21 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Wounded King, posted 05-13-2005 5:12 AM Mammuthus has replied
 Message 99 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-14-2005 6:45 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 79 of 147 (207638)
05-13-2005 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-12-2005 7:38 PM


Jerry Don Bauer writes:
quote:
But their goal never was to evolve a radio. That emerged on its own as a completely novel way of tackling the problem of survival in a world where only oscillators survive. It was "invented" by the mindless procedure that was followed in the experiment, which essentially did nothing but mimic the process of evolution.
You almost write like you think this mindless procedure is some form of ethereal intellect. How can you believe in what seems like some weird pocket of unknown fuzzy cognizance and still keep the atheist slogan as your sig? So tell me. Is this how you think evolution acts in a human genome?
I used the word 'mindless' and I used scare-quotes around the word 'invented'. I think that should tell you exactly what I believe about the nature of the evolutionary process. You have a habit if misinterpreting what other people say, and it is beginning to look like you don't do this by accident. I thought we'd agreed to debate in good spirit, or am I mistaken?
Jerry Don Bauer writes:
quote:
Well, it's pretty clear that the radio wasn't the experimenters' idea. So, whoever invented it, it wasn't them. Therefore, it must have arisen spontaneously from the mindless procedure. There are no other candidates.
So who's idea was it? Do you have any stereos sitting around the house that evolved into place? And if these things just evolve all the time, why in the heck do people have to manufacture them? I mean, if a simple radio can evolve, what is to stop it from further evolution and before you know it we have a Boze system sitting out in the desert? Why is it I have to pay people to manufacture radios when they just poof themselves from nothing?
Your resorting to mocking suggests to me that you don't have a serious answer to offer. I had hoped for something more intelligent and substantial than this.
Jerry Don Bauer writes:
quote:
The process of evolution consists of nothing more than random mutation of mutable material and selective pressure on the results of those mutations. This can be shown in any model that can handle these two mechanisms.
Well I don't think I can think of any material that isn't mutable. So I guess everything in nature just evolves.
As long as some mutations are selected for and others are not, then evolution of whatever is subject to those circumstances is a certainty.
Jerry Don Bauer writes:
How do Darwinists go back in time sometimes millions of years to do these breeding experiments in order to hypothesize what species evolved into other species? They cannot, as to even contemplate this is ludicrous. Yet, they readily draw these conclusions and teach them as theories of science without any empirical experimental evidence what-so-ever to support them and ignoring the fact that these theories have never been taken through the observation -----> hypothesis -----> theory process inherent in the scientific method in order for theories of science to be termed a theory of science to begin with.
Let's apply that to ID, shall we? How do ID-ists go back in time (to which points in time should they go?) to observe the Intelligent Designer doing its thing?
"They cannot, as to even contemplate this is ludicrous. Yet, they readily draw these conclusions and teach them as theories of science without any empirical experimental evidence what-so-ever to support them and ignoring the fact that these theories have never been taken through the observation -----> hypothesis -----> theory process inherent in the scientific method in order for theories of science to be termed a theory of science to begin with."
Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Jerry Don Bauer writes:
quote:
If that's true, then mustn't we also conclude that an ice crystal is intelligently designed? After all, when it melts, essentially the same thing happens. I just fail to see the connection between the degradation of something and any conclusions about its origin.
Nah...Not the same thing. Darwinism doesn't predict that ice crystals don't melt.
More mocking? How about a serious answer?
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 13-May-2005 09:12 AM

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-12-2005 7:38 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

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


Message 80 of 147 (207641)
05-13-2005 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Modulous
05-12-2005 3:18 PM


No need to get shirty, I just don't think that the sort of anthropocentric view which says that the conditions that we experience are normal is a good position to be arguing from. Why use a term like extraordinary at all, all you are doing is pandering to the anti-evolutionary propaganda on the, supposedly, astronomical unlikelihood of abiogenesis ever occurring.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Modulous, posted 05-12-2005 3:18 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Modulous, posted 05-13-2005 8:09 AM Wounded King has replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 147 (207651)
05-13-2005 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by AdminNosy
05-13-2005 2:42 AM


Re: Time to suport what you say
Then I demand you stop trolling me idiot! Do not post to me further if you are going to get pissed at my responses to you. You are obviously abusing your position as a moderator as you want to interchange ideas and if you don't like my responses to them, then bye bye baby. LOL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by AdminNosy, posted 05-13-2005 2:42 AM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 82 of 147 (207654)
05-13-2005 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-11-2005 11:47 AM


Re: Of hammers and men
Jerry Don Bauer writes:
Flipping 500 quarters and having them all come up heads is statistically impossible.
'All heads' is one out of 2500 possible configurations. So if I empty a bucket of 500 coins onto the floor, the chance that all of them will end up heads is 1 in 2500. But whatever configuration I end up with, it's always just one configuration out of 2500, therefore the chance of any one particular configuration is 1 in 2500, the one actually on the floor is no exception. After emptying the bucket, that configuration of coins is a fact. So, something you say is statistically impossible, has in fact happened.
Now, if you were to predict the exact configuration before emptying the bucket, I might grant you that to be right would be so infinitessimally improbable as to be well-nigh impossible.
That's wherein the problem lies. The improbability argument is always accompanied by the false picture of evolution working toward a predefined goal.
If you say that you know that evolution has no goal and at the same time trot out the improbability argument, you demonstrate that you don't understand the reasoning behind the concept of evolution.
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 09-Feb-2006 12:45 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 11:47 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-14-2005 6:58 PM Parasomnium has replied

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


Message 83 of 147 (207655)
05-13-2005 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Mammuthus
05-13-2005 4:11 AM


Again, their is a thread in the suggestions and questions forum addressing your unwillingness to access papers
If you mean the Proper standards of evidence and referencing thread then I should point out that it isn't meant to be about Jerry.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Mammuthus, posted 05-13-2005 4:11 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Mammuthus, posted 05-13-2005 12:25 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Jerry Don Bauer
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 147 (207659)
05-13-2005 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by zyncod
05-13-2005 3:05 AM


quote:
I looked under 'Boltzmann,' 'information,' and 'entropy,' and I found no indication that information and entropy are opposites. In fact, by common sense, the opposite would seem to be true. To continue the example of the (simpler than sugar) salt crystal, to define the position of the Na/Cl ions would be simpler in the undissolved state. To define the positions of Na/Cl ions in a crystal (no matter how large), you could simply state "each Na+ ion is surrounded by 6 Cl- ions at a distance of X angstroms, and each Cl- ion is surrounded by 6 Na+ ions of X angstroms," and define the dimensions of the crystal. To define the positions of the ions in the more entropically (word?) stable dissolved salt, you would have to individually state the position of each ion within the solute (a LOT more information).
Really. Well did you look under math? Your math on this pretty much blows buttermilk along with big ned-nose's moderating (sheeze..... I wonder where that nose has been). Be honest. You didn't do much research. Had you, you would have uncovered this, Boltzmann: "Gain in information is loss in entropy"
http://www.wellesley.edu/...istry/chem120/thermo1.html#boltz
quote:
Again, apologies. I should not have brought speculative ideas based upon evolutionary theory into this particular forum (unless you want to discuss the link between extant ribozymes and possible self-replicating extinct ribozymes). However, I do believe that any "CSI" algorithm would see the HIV genome as CSI, whether it was in DNA or RNA form.
Now come on. Dimwit Ned put you up to this. He knew he could not argue with me and set you up for this. Admit it.
quote:
As an aside, I hope that, from a scientific standpoint, you know what this statement means.
Great post.

Design Dynamics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by zyncod, posted 05-13-2005 3:05 AM zyncod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Dead Parrot, posted 05-13-2005 5:52 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied
 Message 94 by zyncod, posted 05-13-2005 12:43 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not replied

  
Dead Parrot
Member (Idle past 3346 days)
Posts: 151
From: Wellington, NZ
Joined: 04-13-2005


Message 85 of 147 (207661)
05-13-2005 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-13-2005 5:40 AM


Had you, you would have uncovered this, Boltzmann: "Gain in information is loss in entropy"
http://www.wellesley.edu/...istry/chem120/thermo1.html#boltz
Also from the linked article:
quote:
"Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall
All the King's horses, and all the King's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again"
Well there's no arguing with that, is there? I mean, this is the most advanced physics I've ever seen. Really, it is.

Mat 27:5 And he went and hanged himself
Luk 10:37 Go, and do thou likewise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-13-2005 5:40 AM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-14-2005 7:00 PM Dead Parrot has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 86 of 147 (207670)
05-13-2005 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-12-2005 6:34 PM


Jerry Don Bauer writes:
Lower life progressed to more complex life, both plant and animal, over time.
It's intriguing that you should say that. What do you think caused this to happen?
I mean this as a serious question and I expect a serious answer.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-12-2005 6:34 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-14-2005 7:04 PM Parasomnium has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 87 of 147 (207682)
05-13-2005 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-12-2005 7:41 PM


LOL...Thermodynamic entropy? Um....no. Do we need to take a class maybe?
Apparently you do. You talked of microstates, and microstates is thermodynamic entropy.
But, OK, you screwed up again and didn't mean thermodynamic entropy. Now you're claiming that the Shannon entropy is a function of the number of chunks in which you choose to subdivide the system.
With that lack of education you have the gall to make fun of me.
You have no idea of my level of education; from your obvious errors I surmise I have a lot more relevant education than you do. But what counts is where the rubber meets the road, and there you fail miserably.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-12-2005 7:41 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-14-2005 7:08 PM JonF has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 88 of 147 (207686)
05-13-2005 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Wounded King
05-13-2005 4:23 AM


No need to get shirty
I was in agreement with you, we just disagreed over word usage. I didn't think any more needed to be said. I was getting shirty because we were discussing word meanings in an ID thread.
I just don't think that the sort of anthropocentric view which says that the conditions that we experience are normal...
It all really depends on how we define normal doesn't it? And that was largely my point. We could define ordinary as "Commonly encountered", that is how I was defining it. Encountered by whom? The user of the word, and his audience, of course. Pre-biotic earth conditions are not commonly encountered, therefore they are not ordinary, they are beyond ordinary therefore they are extraordinary. Given that ordinary is an anthropocentric word (What is ordinary for me, might be extraordinary for you. If I was a field geoligist studying volcanoes, overlooking a pool of magma might be ordinary. To you that might be an extraordinary experience), I see no problems with using it.
Why use a term like extraordinary at all, all you are doing is pandering to the anti-evolutionary propaganda on the, supposedly, astronomical unlikelihood of abiogenesis ever occurring.
How is extraordinary equivalent to astronomically unlikely? My actual job is surrounding motor insurance (think Jack from Fight Club), I experience lots of extraordinary occurances on a weekly basis. Cars, driving down the road one minute, and ending up in a first floor (or second floor to the Americans) room in a quiet house. Like this. Would you define that as extraordinary? I would. Would I define it as astronomically unlikely as the anti-evolutionary propaganda regarding abiogenesis? No, I wouldn't.
If the word extraordinary is so offensive to thine eyes, then consider it cast off in thy mind. Just mentally replace it with specific, or unusual, or unique, or temporal or whatever word you think best describes prebiotic earth that doesn't require us to be subjective.

Eternity is in love with the productions of time.
The busy bee has no time for sorrow.
The hours of folly are measur'd by the clock; but of wisdom, no clock can measure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Wounded King, posted 05-13-2005 4:23 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Wounded King, posted 05-13-2005 8:34 AM Modulous has replied

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


Message 89 of 147 (207696)
05-13-2005 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Modulous
05-13-2005 8:09 AM


OK, I'll drop it. Sorry if I was being pedantic. I'm probably just getting frustrated by Jerry ignoring all of my posts.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Modulous, posted 05-13-2005 8:09 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Modulous, posted 05-13-2005 8:42 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 90 of 147 (207699)
05-13-2005 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-11-2005 6:20 AM


How that evidence is holding up
1)
Premise: Function is an attribute assigned by intelligence
Observation: The heart has a function
Conclusion: The heart, as well as other biological systems that have a function, was designed by an intellifence.
Objection: The premise has not been shown to be true. We cannot accept the conclusion if it is possible the premises are false.
Alternate sequence:
Premise: Function is an attribute assigned by design
Observation: The heart has a function
Conclusion: The heart, as well as other biological systems that have a function, was designed.
2)
Prediction: ID predicts that species would come into the fossil record fully formed
Observation: Species come into the fossil record fully formed
Conclusion: ID has made a successful prediction, this is evidence for ID
Objection: ID doesn't predict species come into the fossil record fully formed, biology makes this prediction since there is no such thing as a half-formed species. For humour see Eric the Half a Bee
Alternate sequence:
Prediction: Biology and common sense predicts that species would come into the fossil record fully formed
Observation: Species come into the fossil record fully formed
Conclusion: Biology and common sense prevail.
3)
Premise 1: DNA is very long
Premise 2: Ribose has a half life of 44 years
Premise 3: Life had billions of years within which to form
Conclusion: DNA is designed
Objection: Non sequitur
4)
Premise: "As loose information is diffused, information entropy will tend to increase unless energy, guided by intelligence, is added into the system to stabilize it"
Observation: Information is not decreasing.
Conclusion: There must be intelligence guiding the energy that is being added to the system.
Objection: No energy guidance has been observed. Also, it has been shown that loose information, coupled with a selection mechanism, increases information. It has yet to be shown that natural selection cannot be a suitable selection method.
Alternate sequence:
Premise: As loose information is diffused, information entropy will tend to increase unless guided by a selection method
Observation: Information is not decreasing.
Conclusion: There must be a selection method.
5)
Premise: ICS cannot evolve
Observation: There are biological systems with ICS
Conclusion: Biological systems with ICS can't have evolved and so must have been designed.
Objection: The premise has not yet be confirmed as being true. Indeed, there is evidence that the premise is false. We cannot accept the conclusion until the premise has been shown to be true.
I hope the other five evidences are better than this Jerry, since it is a rather weak collection so far. When pressed about your evidence you begin to attack strawmen alternative theories and strawmen comments. If you want to attack evolution go to the evolution forum. In here you are defending ID. Do so.
This message has been edited by Modulous, Fri, 13-May-2005 01:43 PM
This message has been edited by Modulous, Fri, 13-May-2005 02:29 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 6:20 AM Jerry Don Bauer 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