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:   EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Science Under Attack
traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 271 of 438 (516779)
07-27-2009 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Huntard
07-27-2009 12:39 PM


Re: Intelligent Design
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Huntard, posted 07-27-2009 12:39 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Huntard, posted 07-27-2009 1:39 PM traderdrew has replied
 Message 274 by PaulK, posted 07-27-2009 1:46 PM traderdrew has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 272 of 438 (516784)
07-27-2009 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by New Cat's Eye
07-27-2009 12:54 PM


Re: Intelligent Design
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-27-2009 12:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-27-2009 1:50 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 331 by Richard Townsend, posted 07-30-2009 1:08 PM traderdrew has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 273 of 438 (516786)
07-27-2009 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by traderdrew
07-27-2009 1:08 PM


Re: Intelligent Design
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by traderdrew, posted 07-27-2009 1:08 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Admin, posted 07-27-2009 2:16 PM Huntard has not replied
 Message 281 by traderdrew, posted 07-27-2009 2:47 PM Huntard has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 274 of 438 (516787)
07-27-2009 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by traderdrew
07-27-2009 1:08 PM


Re: Intelligent Design
quote:
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.
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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by traderdrew, posted 07-27-2009 1:08 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by traderdrew, posted 07-27-2009 2:20 PM PaulK has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 275 of 438 (516788)
07-27-2009 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by traderdrew
07-27-2009 1:28 PM


Re: Intelligent Design
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:
Prove to me that ID cannot follow scientific methods.
Its not that they cannot, it that they do not.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by traderdrew, posted 07-27-2009 1:28 PM traderdrew has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 276 of 438 (516791)
07-27-2009 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Huntard
07-27-2009 1:39 PM


Re: Intelligent Design
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.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Huntard, posted 07-27-2009 1:39 PM Huntard has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 277 of 438 (516795)
07-27-2009 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by PaulK
07-27-2009 1:46 PM


Re: Intelligent Design
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by PaulK, posted 07-27-2009 1:46 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Percy, posted 07-27-2009 2:28 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 279 by Huntard, posted 07-27-2009 2:30 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 280 by PaulK, posted 07-27-2009 2:33 PM traderdrew has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 278 of 438 (516799)
07-27-2009 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by traderdrew
07-27-2009 2:20 PM


Re: Intelligent Design
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by traderdrew, posted 07-27-2009 2:20 PM traderdrew has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 279 of 438 (516800)
07-27-2009 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by traderdrew
07-27-2009 2:20 PM


Re: Intelligent Design
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by traderdrew, posted 07-27-2009 2:20 PM traderdrew has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 280 of 438 (516802)
07-27-2009 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by traderdrew
07-27-2009 2:20 PM


Re: Intelligent Design
quote:
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.
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:
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.
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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by traderdrew, posted 07-27-2009 2:20 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by traderdrew, posted 07-27-2009 3:02 PM PaulK has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 281 of 438 (516805)
07-27-2009 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Huntard
07-27-2009 1:39 PM


Re: Intelligent Design
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Huntard, posted 07-27-2009 1:39 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Huntard, posted 07-27-2009 3:13 PM traderdrew has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 282 of 438 (516809)
07-27-2009 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by PaulK
07-27-2009 2:33 PM


Re: Intelligent Design
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by PaulK, posted 07-27-2009 2:33 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by PaulK, posted 07-27-2009 3:19 PM traderdrew has replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 283 of 438 (516811)
07-27-2009 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by traderdrew
07-27-2009 2:47 PM


Re: Intelligent Design
traderdrew writes:
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.
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by traderdrew, posted 07-27-2009 2:47 PM traderdrew has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 284 of 438 (516812)
07-27-2009 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by traderdrew
07-27-2009 3:02 PM


Re: Intelligent Design
quote:
Each bit of information is represented by each amino acid along the middle of DNA
NO! Dembski's measur e of information is improbability. That is the very basis of the argument that evolution cannot produce CSI !
quote:
What is the probability of calculating the chances of getting specific proteins?
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:
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.
So that is almost no "information" (by Dembski's measure) at all. It's less than 1 billionth of 1 bit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by traderdrew, posted 07-27-2009 3:02 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by traderdrew, posted 07-27-2009 3:46 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 291 by traderdrew, posted 07-27-2009 4:17 PM PaulK has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 285 of 438 (516816)
07-27-2009 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Huntard
07-27-2009 12:52 PM


Re: Intelligent Design
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Huntard, posted 07-27-2009 12:52 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Huntard, posted 07-27-2009 4:14 PM traderdrew 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