Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-20-2019 9:55 PM
54 online now:
AZPaul3, Capt Stormfield, DrJones* (3 members, 51 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,507 Year: 3,544/19,786 Month: 539/1,087 Week: 129/212 Day: 45/14 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
27NextFF
Author Topic:   Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8838
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 76 of 402 (473950)
07-03-2008 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by John 10:10
07-03-2008 8:48 PM


Re: You're an ape, John
So that's how the DNA of cells figured out how to become DNA in the first place.

OK, show me the evidence?

Since you've moved back in time to this different topic and don't want to discuss biological evolution anymore does that mean you've decided that we are right on all the rest. That is, you agree that once DNA was in place, however that happened, the evolutionary model best fits the facts we have at hand.

If you haven't finished with the area that there is such overwhelming evidence for (approximately none of which you are aware of) then what good does it do to move onto another area?

If you looked around this site you'd find that almost everyone here agrees that, while there are a large number of good clues about your question, there isn't any definitive answer. So let's all agree that this is a "don't know the answer (yet)" area. Any problems with that?

So we have two areas of agreement:
1) We all don't know exactly how DNA formed in the first place.
2) We have one very good explanation for the development of life since then.

Right?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by John 10:10, posted 07-03-2008 8:48 PM John 10:10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by John 10:10, posted 07-04-2008 9:49 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 3785 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 77 of 402 (473951)
07-03-2008 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by John 10:10
07-03-2008 8:48 PM


Re: You're an ape, John
So that's how the DNA of cells figured out how to become DNA in the first place.

OK, show me the evidence?

That's like asking how your bones figured out how to be hard.

DNA didn't figure anything out. It just works that way. Taken any cellular biology yet?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by John 10:10, posted 07-03-2008 8:48 PM John 10:10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by John 10:10, posted 07-04-2008 10:14 AM Organicmachination has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 181 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 78 of 402 (473952)
07-03-2008 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by John 10:10
07-03-2008 8:48 PM


Re: You're an ape, John
Natural selection and descent with modification. Maybe a little founders effect and other similar things.
At least there is evidence for this. There is no evidence for a designer -- that's a religious belief.

So that's how the DNA of cells figured out how to become DNA in the first place.

OK, show me the evidence?

Sure, no problem.

Check out this on-line lecture:

Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices

Here is the abstract:

Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.

This demolishes the standard ID and creationist "arguments from mathematical impossibility" and shows clear pathways for evolution at all levels.

But I doubt that you will watch it. I suspect you are already convinced that it is wrong somehow--you may not be sure exactly how because it gets into some detailed science--but it just has to be wrong because it contradicts your religious belief.

And that is the argument you have been making this entire thread. You have not provided evidence for your statements, just blanket assertions that science is wrong and your religious belief is correct.

Sorry, science doesn't work that way. We rely on evidence. If you want to play the game you need to ditch belief, superstition, old wives' tales, divination, table tapping and all the rest of that nonsense and bring evidence.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by John 10:10, posted 07-03-2008 8:48 PM John 10:10 has not yet responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 552 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 79 of 402 (473963)
07-04-2008 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by John 10:10
07-03-2008 8:37 PM


Re: You're an ape, John
Johnboy writes:

bluegenius writes:

I think you're scared of the truth, John. A frightened little ape, hiding behind his Bible. The evidence is there, John, in every cell of your body there is information, visible only with a microscope, that tells us that you're an ape.

Is this the best dialogue that evolutionists can descend to?

We'll see, John. What I'm doing is telling you about yourself, both your biological simian self, and your psychological self. It's quite easy, because I know from experience that creationist Christians are invariably frightened of facing up to the scientific truths about their biological selves. I've never met an exception. I can smell the fear through cyberspace, Johnboy.

Yes, every cell of my body knows exactly where it belongs and where every other cell is.

Really? All your cells are sentient? I do think you need a biology lesson, John. For a start, what do all your cells have that might tell us about your simian ancestry? (The clue is in my eponymous picture).

Just how do you think it figured this all out without a Designer/Creator?

We'll get onto that later, Johnboy. Biology class first, then philosophy class. Agreed?

Now, are you too scared to ask me for my special information that demonstrates your true simian nature? That is the question, as the great Bard said.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by John 10:10, posted 07-03-2008 8:37 PM John 10:10 has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 80 of 402 (473970)
07-04-2008 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by John 10:10
07-03-2008 6:04 PM


This tells me and others volumes about your understanding of what true science is all about.

Yes. My understanding of "what true science is all about" is in agreement with the 72 Nobel Laureates I quoted.

The ones who deal with substantiating cause and affect know and understand true science. The rest attend your university.

The 72 Nobel Laureates whom I cited do not, in fact, all "attend my university", though I am flattered that you should place me in such august company.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by John 10:10, posted 07-03-2008 6:04 PM John 10:10 has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 81 of 402 (473972)
07-04-2008 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by John 10:10
07-03-2008 6:07 PM


When you don't have a rational answer to reason with, you attack the messenger.

I point out that you, a non-scientist, know less about science than 72 Nobel Laureates put together ... and you treat that as an "attack" and condemn it as non-rational?

It is perfectly rational, not to mention 100% true. Denying it would be irrational. And treating it as a personal insult smacks of megalomania.

You, I see, have chosen to whine about me pointing it out but without actually denying it, which is neither rational, nor, indeed, an argument.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by John 10:10, posted 07-03-2008 6:07 PM John 10:10 has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 82 of 402 (473973)
07-04-2008 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by John 10:10
07-03-2008 6:44 PM


Re: "True science" and other lies
Read my lips! True science is simply the explanation of how things are the way they are ...

... in other words, theories. Your statements are gradually becoming more accurate, one day you may make it through an entire paragraph without making a mistake.

... and how they came be as they are ...

Only if they're historical sciences. That description would not, for example, fit chemistry very well, because it is not one of the historical sciences.

... proven by testing results ...

... oh dear, you're back to gibberish again.

You don't "test results", you test theories against the results of observations.

... that can be accurately measured and duplicated time and time again.

So, for example, we can look time and time again at the rings of Saturn, or the fossil record, or the rocks brought back from the moon. We cannot, of course, duplicate the things --- can you duplicate Saturn for me? --- but we can of course duplicate the observations as often as we please.

When the theory(s) of evolution can do this, then they will have something they can call true science.

Let's hear from my 72 Nobel prize-winners again:

The evolutionary history of organisms has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as any biological concept.

Could I beseech you once more to consider the possibility that they know something that you don't? Such as ... science.

If you can demonstrate to the contrary, you too may win a Nobel Prize. Good luck with that. I should warn you that even if you were right, which you aren't, proving your case would at some point require studying science rather than merely bloviating about it and dogmatically asserting your own correctness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by John 10:10, posted 07-03-2008 6:44 PM John 10:10 has not yet responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 83 of 402 (473982)
07-04-2008 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by John 10:10
07-02-2008 4:11 PM


No It Is Not
To the IDists/Creationists, this is what science is all about, proving cause and effect in everything between micro to macro space.

Well actually this is exactly what science is not.

Starting from a philosophically biased conclusion and working your way backwards with no potential for the original conclusion to be wrong is the very antthesis of scientific investigation.

What if the conclusion you start with is wrong?
You just end up with a heap of misinterpreted evidence and no progress, discovery or anything of ant practical value.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by John 10:10, posted 07-02-2008 4:11 PM John 10:10 has not yet responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 84 of 402 (473983)
07-04-2008 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by randman
07-02-2008 2:33 PM


Prove It
Prove it.

Well actually the complete inability of creation "science" to predict new physical phenomenon does all the proving that is necessary.

Name a single new physical phenomenon ever predicted and then discovered by creationist/ IDist "science"?

Are creationist conclusions tested against nature at all?
What experiments have been undertaken?
Can it really be called science if no experiments at all are conducted?

ID is all about interpreting evidence in terms of preconceived conclusions. Biased explanation, not discovery, is the only possible result. The research you speak of exemplifies this in every case I have ever seen.

If you know of any new physical phenomenon discovered as a result of ID then please do share this startling information.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by randman, posted 07-02-2008 2:33 PM randman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Coyote, posted 07-04-2008 10:29 AM Straggler has not yet responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 85 of 402 (473985)
07-04-2008 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by John 10:10
07-03-2008 9:25 AM


True science for the IDists/Creationists is discovering the wonders of God's creation, learning the cause and effect therein, and applying this to the good of mankind.

Honestly is it investigation if you start with the conclusion rather than the evidence?
Seriously is it science if your starting point is a conclusion that can only ever be 'proved' right but never wrong?

Do you really think the description of science you are proposing as valid when applied to creationist research is a good model for scientific investigation in general?

What if we applied this methodology to medicine for example? Or nuclear physics?
Do you see why I might think that creationism/ID is a philosophy of ignorance?
Creationist/IDist methods of research as you yourself have described them would, if applied to any other area of scientific investigation, result in ignorance at best and disastrously catastrophic consequences at worst.

How can you advocate such a methodology as scientific or even useful?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by John 10:10, posted 07-03-2008 9:25 AM John 10:10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by John 10:10, posted 07-04-2008 10:32 AM Straggler has responded

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 1070 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 86 of 402 (473992)
07-04-2008 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Organicmachination
07-03-2008 8:56 PM


Re: "True science" and other lies
Your definition is not incorrect, it is simply your branding of it as "true science." Evolution fits all of your restrictions, yet you deem it as not "true science."

Evolution fits no such definition. Show us where evolution has been tested "with results that can be replicated time and time again."

All the sciences that are "true science" do this. Evolution cannot nor ever will be able to do this.

Therefore, evolution cannot ever be called true science, and will always be relegated to the realm of speculation, not true science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Organicmachination, posted 07-03-2008 8:56 PM Organicmachination has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-04-2008 1:52 PM John 10:10 has responded
 Message 120 by Chiroptera, posted 07-04-2008 7:45 PM John 10:10 has not yet responded

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 1070 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 87 of 402 (473993)
07-04-2008 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by NosyNed
07-03-2008 8:58 PM


Re: You're an ape, John
So we have two areas of agreement:
1) We all don't know exactly how DNA formed in the first place.
2) We have one very good explanation for the development of life since then.

Right?

Wrong on both counts!

1) You don't know how DNA formed in the first place. You don't speak for me at all.

2) You have one very bad speculation for the development of life since then.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by NosyNed, posted 07-03-2008 8:58 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 1070 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 88 of 402 (473995)
07-04-2008 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Organicmachination
07-03-2008 9:08 PM


Re: You're an ape, John
DNA didn't figure anything out. It just works that way. Taken any cellular biology yet?

So you start with the understanding that DNA/cells know how to replicate themselves, becoming various parts of body creatures, each cell knowing where it is and where each other cell is, yet no one had to figure out (engineer) how the cells could do this in the first place.

If you will look at life, most creatures have to start this process of replicating themselves within the confines of fully developed creatures to start with; i.e., which came first, the chicken or the egg.

In my view, the chicken came first, designed by our Creator, with the ability to replicate itself, as do most other creatures including man.

In my view each creature was created after its own kind, and did not evolve from creature to creature.

This viewpoint certainly has as much place, probably more, in biology classrooms as does the "speculation" of the evolutionary process for the explanation of various life forms.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Organicmachination, posted 07-03-2008 9:08 PM Organicmachination has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by NosyNed, posted 07-04-2008 10:34 AM John 10:10 has responded
 Message 96 by Organicmachination, posted 07-04-2008 12:33 PM John 10:10 has not yet responded
 Message 100 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-04-2008 1:35 PM John 10:10 has not yet responded

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 402 (473997)
07-04-2008 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dr Adequate
07-03-2008 4:17 AM


That's one great advantage evolutionists have over creationists, (which goes along with being right) it is in principle possible for us to educate a creationist, though I confess that the occurence is rather rare. But it is not possible for you to make us as ignorant as yourselves without actual surgery.

That's probably one of the most ignorant statements I've ever heard!

Why bother arguing if you're so bigoted and certain that YOU know the truth? It's pointless.

Tell me, what are the rules and bounds of the TOE?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2008 4:17 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 181 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 90 of 402 (473999)
07-04-2008 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Straggler
07-04-2008 8:22 AM


Re: Prove It
Are creationist conclusions tested against nature at all?
What experiments have been undertaken?
Can it really be called science if no experiments at all are conducted?

Well, creationists did conduct the RATE Project in an effort to disprove radiometric dating through establishing a changing decay constant. Unfortunately for them they just succeeded in showing that science was right all along.

ID is all about interpreting evidence in terms of preconceived conclusions. Biased explanation, not discovery, is the only possible result. The research you speak of exemplifies this in every case I have ever seen.

The authors of the RATE Project refused to believe their own results (thus providing another example of creation "science" at work).

Here is an excellent analysis of the RATE Project:

Assessing the RATE Project


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Straggler, posted 07-04-2008 8:22 AM Straggler has not yet responded

Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
27NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019