|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Science Under Attack | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5182 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
No it doesn't. That's actually the premise. Well then, I am sure you can provide us with competing reasonable explanations that can explain things like 500 bits of CSI formed by natural causeations.
No it doesn't. It continues to exist because some people expressed data in creative ways. Ways that are uncscientific. I think you are wrong. It continues to exist because of the lack of adequate explanations for certain phenomenon. The multiuniverse theory was something that was supposed to explain the fine-tuning of the universe but as Robin Collins pointed out, it actually calls for an intelligent designer.
Really? First of all, according to crawler30 ID's got nothing to do with evolution. I'd sort it out amongst yourselves what it does and doesn't address first. I don't know what crawler 30 stated but many proponents such as Michael Behe believe in Darwinian evolution. He believes it has certain limits for biochemical reasons.
What does this got to do with anything? Just because some people refuse to accept they are wrong, it somehow proves science is wrong? Furthermore, science doesn't work that way. Let me put it this way. How many years does Darwin or other sciences need to disprove various facets of ID?
Would you mind elaborating on that proof? There are at least three major marine phyla that are involved in this. Apparently, I am slowly trying to find more out about the latitudinal patterns across the globe of marine life. There is a diverse amount of marine species off Palau, Micronesia and the rings biodiversity stem out from there. (apparently every 600 miles or so) Orderly patterns of biodiversity among phyla across the globe would contradict a Darwinian predictions of diversity and nonuniformity over time. It is more in line with some sort of recreation event.
You've allready lost. See Kitzmiller v. Dover. This was just one battle. So are you really in tune with reality when you think I have already lost?
Nothing. They have reality on their side, after all. I think I have reality on my side. So there you go.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5182 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
Its not that we agree to disagree, its that I've shown that you are wrong and you haven't shown otherwise. You are referring to that ID cannot follow scientific methods? Common sense says that they can. It occurs when proponents of ID follow the explanations of scientific theories. For example, the double helix (sugar phosphate bonds with amino acids in the middle) explains DNA very well and there is no need to refute it. This 1953 theory actually started to create controversy because scientists then realized how complex it was and the complexities necessary to translate that information and build proteins with it. In fact some scientists actually believe in guided transpermia because life and the DNA that helps perpetuate it is so complex. This is in fact intelligent design but it isn't ID backed by theism. I don't think Darwinism can explain life. It certain can't explain abiogenesis. I don't think it can explain things like the evolution of the flatfish or the flatworm with a symbiotic relationship with algae.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Well then, I am sure you can provide us with competing reasonable explanations that can explain things like 500 bits of CSI formed by natural causeations.
Not sure what you mean wit CSI, but I'll give 2352 bits of information being created by a single mutation. Read message 35 of this thread: Message 35 I'm sorry, I don't know how to link to specific messages anymore with the new board software.
I think you are wrong.
What you think is irrelevant. What the evidence shows is what's important.
It continues to exist because of the lack of adequate explanations for certain phenomenon.
Like new bits of information arising from a single mutation like I just showed?
The multiuniverse theory was something that was supposed to explain the fine-tuning of the universe but as Robin Collins pointed out, it actually calls for an intelligent designer.
It doesn't call for an intelligent designer. And it doesn't explain the "fine tuning" either. Since that's a totally wrong argument anyway. But that's not for this thread.
I don't know what crawler 30 stated but many proponents such as Michael Behe believe in Darwinian evolution.
Read upthread a bit, you'll find his posts there. And once again, if you accept evolution, then why teach ID alongside it?
He believes it has certain limits for biochemical reasons.
And he is wrong,as also shown in Kitzmiller v. Dover.
Let me put it this way. How many years does Darwin or other sciences need to disprove various facets of ID?
None. First of all it doesn't work that way, second, you can't disprove anything especially not when you invoke a supernatural "intelligent designer"
There are at least three major marine phyla that are involved in this. Apparently, I am slowly trying to find more out about the latitudinal patterns across the globe of marine life. There is a diverse amount of marine species off Palau, Micronesia and the rings biodiversity stem out from there. (apparently every 600 miles or so) Orderly patterns of biodiversity among phyla across the globe would contradict a Darwinian predictions of diversity and nonuniformity over time. It is more in line with some sort of recreation event.
That's not really evidence, now is it? PLease provide a scientific report or investigation that supports your assertion.
This was just one battle. So are you really in tune with reality when you think I have already lost?
Yep, reality's against you as well, you see.
I think I have reality on my side. So there you go.
What you think is irrelevant. Edited by Admin, : Edit message link to use the MID dBCode. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Just as soon as you find an example that needs explaining. Oh, thats right You can't. Nobody has found one. Nobody even has a practical way of finding one. It's been more than 10 years since The Design Inference was published. And still not one valid example from biology, and no way to find one. Not much of an argument, is it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Its not that we agree to disagree, its that I've shown that you are wrong and you haven't shown otherwise.
You are referring to that ID cannot follow scientific methods?
No, not at all. In fact, in Message 264 I wrote:
quote: I've not claimed that ID is incapable of following scientific methods.
In fact some scientists actually believe in guided transpermia because life and the DNA that helps perpetuate it is so complex. This is in fact intelligent design but it isn't ID backed by theism. Okay, show me the paper then. Lets see how scientific it is.
I don't think Darwinism can explain life. It certain can't explain abiogenesis. I don't think it can explain things like the evolution of the flatfish or the flatworm with a symbiotic relationship with algae. It doesn't matter what you think. Real scientists will continue to use the ToE to explain these things even while you think they can't/aren't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Huntard writes: I'm sorry, I don't know how to link to specific messages anymore with the new board software. Yeah, sorry I haven't made this more clear. All you need is the message ID. If the message is displayed in a browser window or tab somewhere, then just look at the "Message 35 of 50" portion and to its right you'll see the ID in gray text between parentheses. Use the message ID like this in your message: [mid=356152] The message ID is also displayed in the hover box whenever you hover your mouse over a link to the message. I'm going to edit your message with this code, just use edit or peek to see the code in place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5182 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
And still not one valid example from biology, and no way to find one. Not much of an argument, is it ? I have already asked you to post a link but since you didn't I guess you only have your "see no CSI" opinion of the genome. If there is no CSI in biology, then what are the sequences of amino acids in DNA used for? After that, then tell us why DNA is transcribed in the RNA polymerase and then tranlated by the ribosome which then produces a chain of polypeptides which then become various types of functional proteins.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi TraderDrew,
About CSI, this is an unsubstantiated and unproven idea first proposed by William Dembski. It isn't at a stage where arguments can be predicated upon it. It is still incumbent upon advocates of this idea to provide evidence that it has some reality. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
After that, then tell us why DNA is transcribed in the RNA polymerase and then tranlated by the ribosome which then produces a chain of polypeptides which then become various types of functional proteins.
That's easy, it's because that is the only thing it can do whilst obeying the laws of chemistry. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Whar exactly am I supposed to post a link to ? How can I show that a calculation hasn't been done by posting a link ?
quote: That's a non-sequitur. The "bits" of CSI are units of improbability - so you need a probability calculation to show that there are 500 bits. And you haven't even offered a valid specification. Where is the specification and where is the probability calculation ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5182 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
I only scantly examined the bacteria-nylon debate a couple of months ago. There is at least one ID design web site that addresses it. You would have to wait a while from me.
What you think is irrelevant. What the evidence shows is what's important. Well then, I guess you can say that the thoughts that came up with the multiuniverse theory are irrelevant since I have not found anything that backs it up. Maybe string theory potentiall could but last I knew it just in the theoretical (thinking) realm.
And he is wrong,as also shown in Kitzmiller v. Dover. I believe I have already seen information provided by RAZD and it fails to convince me. Certain IC can evolve but that doesn't mean that the blueprints for IC systems evolved or that the flagellum evolved through a step by step Darwinian process from a TTSS. Actually, it seems that the TTSS is used to help build the filament of the flagellum.
First of all it doesn't work that way, second, you can't disprove anything especially not when you invoke a supernatural "intelligent designer" What are you talking about? Science disproves theories all the time by competition.
That's not really evidence, now is it? PLease provide a scientific report or investigation that supports your assertion. That is what I have been tracking down. It is inside of a certain book. I'm not sure if there is more than one book with this information. I was told about it from a Darwinist. He didn't want to hear about my thoughts on ID after what he told me. You can do some investigation if you want too.
What you think is irrelevant. So in other words, what advocates of ID think is automatically irrelevant. Just like that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5182 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
The "bits" of CSI are units of improbability - so you need a probability calculation to show that there are 500 bits. And you haven't even offered a valid specification. Where is the specification and where is the probability calculation? Each bit of information is represented by each amino acid along the middle of DNA. When the amino acids form into chains (also reprented in RNA) you have specification for building specific types of proteins. There are many types of proteins. A new one was recently discovered in a toxin excreted by a marine mollusk. What is the probability of calculating the chances of getting specific proteins? I would say 100% if you eliminate minor errors. Quoting the work of James Shapiro, the sophisticated error correction mechanisms catches errors and ensures a 99.99999999% duplication accuracy rate. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2324 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
traderdrew writes:
Ok, but don't go claim there is no way information can arise naturally if you don't know for certain that it can't.
I only scantly examined the bacteria-nylon debate a couple of months ago. There is at least one ID design web site that addresses it. You would have to wait a while from me. Well then, I guess you can say that the thoughts that came up with the multiuniverse theory are irrelevant since I have not found anything that backs it up.
They are.
Maybe string theory potentiall could but last I knew it just in the theoretical (thinking) realm.
It is.
I believe I have already seen information provided by RAZD and it fails to convince me. Certain IC can evolve but that doesn't mean that the blueprints for IC systems evolved or that the flagellum evolved through a step by step Darwinian process from a TTSS. Actually, it seems that the TTSS is used to help build the filament of the flagellum.
Again, don't go claiming things you aren't even sure of.
What are you talking about? Science disproves theories all the time by competition.
No, it disproves predictions made by hypotheses. So yes, you can disprove things. But pray tell, how do we disprove a supernatural "intelligent designer"?
That is what I have been tracking down. It is inside of a certain book.
I don't think it'll be any scientific evidence then, but I'll await it before commenting more.
I was told about it from a Darwinist. He didn't want to hear about my thoughts on ID after what he told me. You can do some investigation if you want too.
Me? YOU are the one making the claim, so YOU are the one who should support it.
So in other words, what advocates of ID think is automatically irrelevant. Just like that.
Yes, and so is what everybody else thinks. Without evidence to back up your claims, whether or not you think it's true is completely and utterly irrelevant. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: NO! Dembski's measur e of information is improbability. That is the very basis of the argument that evolution cannot produce CSI !
quote: I'll tell you what it is - it's completely irrelevant. Unless you can produce a valid specification (by Dembski's rules) that requires *that* protein and no other.
quote:So that is almost no "information" (by Dembski's measure) at all. It's less than 1 billionth of 1 bit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5182 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
First of all, there is no "Darwinian faith" I think Darwinists do have faith. They originally had faith that the cell was just a simple blob of plasm. Now they are having trouble persuading people that it can explain systems that would require multiple coherent mutations such as protein binding sites or cilium, flagellum or gene regulatory networks. But don't worry, you and many others on this forum have faith that someday Darwin will explain it without any reasonable doubt. You have knowledge and faith that Darwin with time and chance will explain all of these things. I have some knowledge of ID and faith that Darwinism won't. I have been thinking about my my conspiracy theory. Ben Stein was the one who stated that in his experience, when someone doesn't want to talk about something or wants to intimidate people into shutting up, then someone has something to hide. I think he has a background in law? So seeing this from a lawyers perspective, I certainly will agree. I would also agree with this from my experience. Maybe it isn't a conspiracy. It could be that liberals who run certain organizations think that the people are to stupid to think for themselves and that ID would only make them dumber. But then again, I would have to be persuaded if that is the case as I somehow think the former is more likely. Kenneth Miller seems to think that ID would shut down all inquiry if we said that God did it. I think just the opposite. It seems all of these debates only raises more inquiry and cross examination and stimulates thought. But then again, Huntard thinks that what I think is irrelevant. Right? Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024