Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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:   Spotting Beretta's "designer" {Now only 1 summation message per member}
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 114 of 315 (475989)
07-20-2008 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Beretta
07-20-2008 8:35 AM


Re: Information and Design
Theoretically maybe but we need more than theory to constitute scientific proof. Supposition upon supposition is what has put evolution into the 'fact' section of our lives - that is not/should not be science.We need direct evidence to turn theories into fact.
You are making the same mistake most creationists make, in thinking that we progress from theory to fact or proof.
That is not correct. There is no such thing as "scientific proof" except in the minds of creationists, and then only as a means of separating the theory of evolution from other branches of science.
In science, theory is the highest level obtainable. A theory is the current best explanation for a set of observations. A powerful theory not only explains all the relevant facts, but also allows accurate predictions to be made.
At no point does a theory graduate to a fact or a law; theories explain facts and laws.
These corrections render your arguments invalid, and expose your lack of scientific knowledge. (See tagline.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Beretta, posted 07-20-2008 8:35 AM Beretta has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 132 of 315 (476503)
07-24-2008 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Beretta
07-24-2008 10:25 AM


Re: Boeing 747s
Epic poems and Boeing 747's do not come into existance by themselves, no matter how much time is available -and neither do cells or even proteins.
There is one serious flaw in this argument: Boeing 747s are not alive. This might be a good argument for TRVE believers, but it is patently ridiculous at any level beyond that.
As for cells and proteins, a lot of the building blocks can be seen forming in nature. Don't bet the rent money that they won't be assembled in the laboratory before too long now.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Beretta, posted 07-24-2008 10:25 AM Beretta has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 164 of 315 (477014)
07-29-2008 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Beretta
07-29-2008 12:08 PM


Re: ID vs Creationism
I do not believe in any way that the ID position is dishonest -they're just sticking with the science and saying that this is not a religious argument so don't start with Noah's ark because we are not interested in that -what we want to do is discuss the scientific evidence and the possible alternative explanations for what we have. Everyone has the same evidence, it's the interpretation of the evidence that often differs.
What is that evidence?
A think a lot of are under the impression that ID is creation "science" lite, established after the Edwards decision of the US Supreme Court as a way to sneak creation "science" back into the classrooms.
The standard arguments for ID are not impressive either:
So, what is the evidence for ID in 100 words or less (and you can't bring up anything to do with evolution).

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Beretta, posted 07-29-2008 12:08 PM Beretta has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 170 of 315 (477191)
07-30-2008 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Buzsaw
07-30-2008 10:27 PM


Re: The Creationist ID Dilema Relative To Science
All we can do is interpret the archaeological and other evidences as supportive of the Biblical record when indeed that is possible.
And when that is not possible, you must admit it.
The "global" flood 4,350 years ago is a good example. Archaeology absolutely fails to support that event, yet few creationists "interpret the archaeological and other evidences" as contradicting scripture.
Much the same with the "designer." Everything possible will be interpreted as supporting design, while nothing which suggests a natural origin will be accepted.
Creation "science" at its best.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Buzsaw, posted 07-30-2008 10:27 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 192 of 315 (477233)
07-31-2008 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Beretta
07-31-2008 7:43 AM


Support for ID?
Well of course there's the evidence against evolution which, in a general sense in any case, is support for ID
Nonsense.
First, the evidence against evolution is strictly creation "science" -- in other words, religion masquerading as science for the purpose of religious apologetics. Within the various evolutionary science there is no alternative theory.
Second, that purported evidence against evolution would be just as much support for phlogiston chemistry or phrenology as ID (i.e., none).
When are we going to see evidence for ID that does not mention the theory of evolution? When are we going to see a fully developed ID hypothesis, that can be tested.
I suspect we will see these things when pigs fly. The purpose of ID is not to promote science, but to oppose evolution. The modern version of ID was created after the Edwards decision of the U.S. Supreme Court for the sole purpose of getting creationism back into the schools. All it needs is enough scientific flavor to fool the school boards and legislators. Ask yourself, how much is the scientific research budget of the Discovery Institute? Or do they spend their money on lawyers and PR flacks? The answer to this question will tell you how much science there is to ID.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Beretta, posted 07-31-2008 7:43 AM Beretta has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 209 of 315 (477340)
08-01-2008 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Percy
08-01-2008 8:20 AM


Discovery Institute's goals
The Discovery Institute's way around this dilemma is to declare the modern conception of science bankrupt and has set a goal of changing science to include the supernatural as an assumption. The only way this will ever happen is for the field of ID to adopt that view of science themselves and then produce better scientific results.
Another way that could happen is for a theocracy, or at least religiously controlled, government. The Discovery Institute seems to favor this.
Look at the Wedge Strategy--and what they advocate:
Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
The only way you will get tens of thousands of scientists to adhere to this type of stunted science is through theocratic rule. (Bring the Inquisition out of retirement?)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Percy, posted 08-01-2008 8:20 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Buzsaw, posted 08-01-2008 9:25 PM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 215 of 315 (477406)
08-01-2008 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Buzsaw
08-01-2008 9:03 PM


Will the real ID please stand up
Since the antithesis to ID is ToE isn't it on topic and in fact, paramount for Beretta to criticize ToE in order to argue for ID?
No. ID, as it is being pushed currently, is clearly religion lite. It is not science.
It is an old, discarded idea that was dusted off and sent into battle again after the U.S. Supreme Court's Edwards decision in the 1980s in an effort to sneak creation "science" back into the classrooms under a new name. (Much like ID is being snuck into classrooms under the "critical analysis" cover following the Kitzmiller decision.)
If the Dover decision isn't enough for you, google "cdesign proponentsists" or check this link.
Edited by Coyote, : Spelling

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Buzsaw, posted 08-01-2008 9:03 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Buzsaw, posted 08-01-2008 9:34 PM Coyote has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 255 of 315 (477642)
08-05-2008 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Beretta
08-05-2008 10:03 AM


Ducking the question (again; still)
I repeat, the fossil evidence for evolution is not convincing in the slightest. Are you forgetting the Cambrian explosion? The sudden appearance of fully formed fish? The sudden jumps between this and that with no evidence of intermediates? You really have to look at the big picture and ask yourself whether evolution makes sense.
Why don't you let the professionals deal with the fossils?
You are a proponent of creationism; perhaps you could share your evidence with us (that is the topic of the thread, not your unprofessional and unlearned opinions on the fossil record).

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Beretta, posted 08-05-2008 10:03 AM Beretta has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 264 of 315 (477718)
08-06-2008 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Buzsaw
08-06-2008 9:27 PM


Nonsense
1. The complexity and preciseness of the atmospheric layers required for life on earth.
2. The exact distances of sun, moon and earth and likely other solar bodies effecting life on earth.
3. The precise temperature of the sun required for life on earth.
4. The chemical and material (water, soil, air, etc) makeup of planet earth necessary for life on earth.
5. Forces such as gravity precisely gauged to effect life on earth.
6. Fulfilled Bible prophecy
7. All cultures in world history religious.
8. Complexity of observed life on earth.
9. Complexity of the cosmos.
10. Observance of disorder to order in both the universe and on planet earth.
None of these are scientific evidence. At best they are creation "science" -- in other words, pure apologetics.
About two thirds of these ten can be attributed to evolution. Life adapted to existing conditions; when conditions changed, so did the dominant life forms. If conditions were different, life either would not develop or would have developed differently. Look at the variety of life forms, each adapted to a specific set of environmental conditions.
And Bible prophesy evidence for creation? Like the big flop of the global flood about 4,350 years ago? That is a mainstay of the Bible, but the scientific evidence shows it didn't happen.
Sorry, apologetics and creation "science" don't add up to much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Buzsaw, posted 08-06-2008 9:27 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Beretta, posted 08-07-2008 2:20 AM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 267 of 315 (477731)
08-07-2008 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Beretta
08-07-2008 2:20 AM


Re: Prophecy [not]
I wouldn't be so sure about that -billions of rapidly fossilized dead things preserved in rock layers all over the earth -couldn't be! Evolutionists flailing around blindly in the light failing to see design in biological systems, they fail to see the evidence for the flood because that is the last thing they want to see.
You are wrong from the start. The flood has nothing to do with "billions of rapidly fossilized dead things preserved in rock layers all over the earth." The age attributed to the purported global flood by scholars is about 4,350 years ago. At that age you are dealing with soils, not rock! Your back yard probably has soils of that age; likely it has soils spanning 10,000 or more years. That is where the evidence for the flood would be.
You should see a discontinuity (from erosion) followed by fluvial deposition. That leaves a very distinctive deposit. The problem is that we don't that type of deposit worldwide. We don't see that deposit in more than a few places where there have been floods. Those floods (such as the ones that created the Channeled Scablands in southern and eastern Washington) can be readily tracked and dated. Most are at the end of the last ice age.
So what you have is small floods at the end of the last ice age are easily found, while a global flood a third that age is not. Reason: the global flood is a local tribal myth.
If you want, I can provide you with some data showing there was no global flood that is so new it isn't even addressed in the creationist websites. Let me know if you are interested.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Beretta, posted 08-07-2008 2:20 AM Beretta has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 292 of 315 (477945)
08-09-2008 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Beretta
08-09-2008 9:33 AM


Re: Detection of Intelligence
Who organized the genetic code? It is a code, therefore requires an intelligence to organize amongst millions of potential choices -it is not a purely chemical arrangement that transfers coded messages from one part of a cell to another to make specific arrangements of amino acids into proteins that fold into specific shapes that do specific jobs that coordinate functions that work together to achieve a purpose.
Who organized the message?? Only intelligence can put together a code.
You are behind the times; science has caught up with that argument, and flat-earthed it.
Here is an on-line lecture that provides the details:
    Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices
    Description: 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.
I believe this directly answers your challenge, "Who organized the message?? Only intelligence can put together a code."
But, like the other creationists I have provided this information to, the only answer I likely will receive from you is denial. You have to deny it! It undermines your entire argument by showing that Unintelligent Non-design Suffices.
Another "gap" has squeezed closed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Beretta, posted 08-09-2008 9:33 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Beretta, posted 08-10-2008 9:10 AM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 301 of 315 (477976)
08-10-2008 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Beretta
08-10-2008 9:10 AM


Re: Refuting the model I linked you to
You have not addressed any of the aspects of the model I directed you to.
A few short remarks saying, "Is not!" does not contradict anything. But it seems to be another prime example of creation "science" at work.
Would you care to try again? Did you even watch that on-line lecture, or did you just read the short description I posted?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Beretta, posted 08-10-2008 9:10 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Beretta, posted 08-11-2008 2:03 AM Coyote has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 310 of 315 (478021)
08-11-2008 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 306 by Beretta
08-11-2008 2:03 AM


Summary
Sorry Coyote -no broadband -can't watch the movie so you'll have to fill me in on how this computer model is better than others I have encountered.
So the model you refuted in post #294, you now admit you actually didn't even watch.
This is a fine place to summarize:
You have presented no evidence for ID, you have spent most of your posts dismissing the theory of evolution, and, if this one example is typical, you aren't even familiar with the data.
Creation "science" in a nutshell. All creation and no science. And ID, its illegitimate stepchild, is the same. There is no evidence to support it but it must be right and that evilution stuff must be wrong because we believe.
See you in the next thread, and we'll contend yet again.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Beretta, posted 08-11-2008 2:03 AM Beretta 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