|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Science Under Attack | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3238 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
My rational thought thinks, do Darwinists not approach science with the perspective that a creator does not exist? Is this not an equally flawed premise? Any rational mind sees that a creator isn't involved with everything that goes on, at least in the way that we can see. "Darwinists" (and here, I use the term in the way I think you mean it, and not in the way it comes across to those of us who understand that using it is a perjorative that need not be employed by honest debators) do not assume that a creator does not exist. They start from the premise that the only thing we can discover by empirical means are things that can be measured by empirical means. I know that sounds like a tautology, but since you seem to be missing the point, it needs to be restated. A creator cannot be seen by empirical means, and all the best scientists out there have not seen any evidence of one using empirical means. The only people who do claim to see such evidence are ignoring the studies that contradict their views, use math in a false and misleading way, and have a preconceived notion that a creator (god) must exist, and so need to believe that what they find is evidence of that creator. So, I follow evidence to where it leads, whether or not it contradicts with my original belief on what it would show. You start from the premise a god exists, and everytime someone shows you that your reasoning is flawed, you come back with more flawed reasoning. In short, you need to match the conclusion to the evidence, not the other way around. And someone without the training in a particular field should not deign to teach people who do have the years of study.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3238 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Thanks. I assumed there was a hidden point in there somewhere, but not being a statistician or a doctor, I couldn't see it. I admit when I have a lack of knowledge in an area.
IDists seem to believe they are experts in all fields. Or at least, the ones who post here come off that way to me. Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
My rational thought thinks, do Darwinists not approach science with the perspective that a creator does not exist? To be blunt, the "Darwinists" approach would be that it matters not whether a creator exists or not. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
bluescat48 writes: My rational thought thinks, do Darwinists not approach science with the perspective that a creator does not exist?
To be blunt, the "Darwinists" approach would be that it matters not whether a creator exists or not. Or to put it yet another way, the "Darwinist" approach would be to insure that no matter what conclusions are reached, they're based upon evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Or to put it yet another way, the "Darwinist" approach would be to insure that no matter what conclusions are reached, they're based upon evidence.
Correct. The fact that a creator exists or not has no bearing on evolution. The only thing that is important is the evidence. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
I think that traderdrew is making a totally nonsensical argument. That sort of thing is not really a test of rationality it is a test of being able to comprehend some quite non-intuitive statistics. I think it works for me but I am wired differently than many of the evolutionists around here. On the other hand, it is true that games are being played around here and I have been also guilty of playing them. However, the games won't work unless there at least some truth behind the messages. I do give people credit where credit is due. You handed my ass to me on this forum because I was arrogant. Nobody else did that here. That is somewhat a matter of opinion because it depends on how much you can see through the content of the messages. I think most posters underestimate this ability in other people. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
"Darwinists" (and here, I use the term in the way I think you mean it, and not in the way it comes across to those of us who understand that using it is a perjorative that need not be employed by honest debators) do not assume that a creator does not exist. I agree. This is true.
A creator cannot be seen by empirical means, and all the best scientists out there have not seen any evidence of one using empirical means. Are you sure about that? Why is it then when somebody who lets an article on ID such as Stephen Meyer's article published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, gets intimidated, expelled or fired? I will repeat that I think the powers on the top are hiding something. Some people just don't want to admit that this as probable.
The only people who do claim to see such evidence are ignoring the studies that contradict their views, use math in a false and misleading way, and have a preconceived notion that a creator (god) must exist, and so need to believe that what they find is evidence of that creator. It couldn't be that other models have continuously failed to explain the evidence exceptionally well? It can't be that explaining that past citing only natural causes and phenomenon is a closed loop that doesn't allow any room for an intelligent designer?
In short, you need to match the conclusion to the evidence, not the other way around. And someone without the training in a particular field should not deign to teach people who do have the years of study. OK, then I will stop. But I wasn't really attempting to teach you. We can learn things every day and so this is a given. I was attempting to reason with you not that I thought the odds were on my side. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3238 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Are you sure about that? Why is it then when somebody who lets an article on ID such as Stephen Meyer's article published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, gets intimidated, expelled or fired? I will repeat that I think the powers on the top are hiding something. Some people just don't want to admit that this as probable. I'm not well versed on this case, but it appears that the reason he was fired and "intimidated" was because he didn't follow the rules of getting an article into the journal, not because of the content of the article. It sounds like he didn't have the article peer reviewed, quite probably because any time an IDists claims are peer reviewed, it turns out they miscalculated or conflated terms to make their argument stronger to the lay person, but can't fool actual scientists.
It couldn't be that other models have continuously failed to explain the evidence exceptionally well? It can't be that explaining that past citing only natural causes and phenomenon is a closed loop that doesn't allow any room for an intelligent designer? You have yet to show something that isn't explained well by evolution, but is by ID. On the contrary, we have tons of things that are not even attempted to be explained by ID that are explained by evolution. What is the ID explanation for bacterial resistance to antibiotics? For a "new" theory to supercede an old one, it has to explain everything the old one does, at least as well, and then make predictions the old one doesn't, and then those predictions need to be shown to be true. So, what predictions does ID make that are contradicted by evolution, and what experiments have been done to show that the ID prediction is true and the evolution one is not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Nobody was fired. Sternberg left his position as editor before that issue went out, as had been planned in advance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
I'm not well versed on this case, but it appears that the reason he was fired and "intimidated" was because he didn't follow the rules of getting an article into the journal, not because of the content of the article. Sternberg wasn't fired, he had already announced his resignation from the editorial position. The fact that he slipped this paper into the last edition he was in charge of may not be purely coincidental. He also wasn't fired from his other position as a Research associate at the Smithsonian. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
I'm not well versed on this case, but it appears that the reason he was fired and "intimidated" was because he didn't follow the rules of getting an article into the journal, not because of the content of the article. It sounds like he didn't have the article peer reviewed, quite probably because any time an IDists claims are peer reviewed, it turns out they miscalculated or conflated terms to make their argument stronger to the lay person, but can't fool actual scientists. And one one of the rules is, don't let any article that supports ID into the journal???
You have yet to show something that isn't explained well by evolution, but is by ID. On the contrary, we have tons of things that are not even attempted to be explained by ID that are explained by evolution. I have things I can mine. Here is just one of them. Let's just assume that PaulK is correct with debunking CSI. It probably doesn't matter because DNA is more like CMSI (complex multilayered specified information). It has information that overlaps in more than one way. It is inside "Signature in the Cell" but that term wasn't used. "Signature in the Cell" isn't about CSI. It is more about abiogenesis theories.
What is the ID explanation for bacterial resistance to antibiotics? I have no problem with it. Michael Behe addressed it.
So, what predictions does ID make that are contradicted by evolution, and what experiments have been done to show that the ID prediction is true and the evolution one is not? From the top of my head, ID predicted that there are uses for junk DNA and there are at least 10 of them. ID also predicted that the TTSS devolved from the flagellum and it has proven it. (Do you want references?) An extrapolation from Darwinism made a certain amount of evolutionists believe that devolution doesn't occur but that wasn't true. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3238 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
And one one of the rules is, don't let any article that supports ID into the journal??? Not at all, unless the article covered content that was not related to the field of the journal. For instance, an ID article about biological functions would not be allowed in a Physics Journal. Not because it's ID, but because it's not Physics, it's biological. As for this case, the article wasn't peer reviewed, which is against the rules. Whewther it's ID, evolution, or fairy dust, the article HAS to be peer reviewed.
I have things I can mine. Here is just one of them. Let's just assume that PaulK is correct with debunking CSI. It probably doesn't matter because DNA is more like CMSI (complex multilayered specified information). It has information that overlaps in more than one way. It is inside "Signature in the Cell" but that term wasn't used. "Signature in the Cell" isn't about CSI. It is more about abiogenesis theories. Ok, but evolution explains DNA, well enough for 99.9% of the biologists in the world, so you have to show us where ID explains DNA better than evolution. Claiming that CSI or CMSI can't evolve is a claim, show me why it can't. The math Dembski uses is woefully incorrect, so I want you to show me, yourslef, what stops evolution from producing DNA. Show your work please.
I have no problem with it. Michael Behe addressed it. In your own words...what is it?
From the top of my head, ID predicted that there are uses for junk DNA and there are at least 10 of them. ID also predicted that the TTSS devolved from the flagellum and it has proven it. (Do you want references?) An extrapolation from Darwinism made a certain amount of evolutionists believe that devolution doesn't occur but that wasn't true. Evolution predicts uses for junk DNA, too. What prediction contradicts evolution? Yes, I want references, because as far as I can tell, evolution has proved that the flagellum evolved from the TTSS. So, how is your "proof" better than our "proof"? AGain, show your work. Um, define devolution? All evolution means is change, so how can you have a loss of change? If something changes, it's evolving, regardless of what "direction" you think it's going in. The word devolution has no meaning in biology, just like, technically, decelleration has no meaning in physics. You can have negative accelleration, but decelleration doesn't really mean anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5154 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
For instance, an ID article about biological functions would not be allowed in a Physics Journal. Not because it's ID, but because it's not Physics, it's biological. I was just reading the article. It is in the online archives in Discovery Institute's website. It is an article about biology.
Claiming that CSI or CMSI can't evolve is a claim, show me why it can't.The math Dembski uses is woefully incorrect, so I want you to show me, yourslef, what stops evolution from producing DNA. Show your work please. It is right for you to ask me for it but I just told you that I have to mine for it. For not I will continue to have faith that no abiogenesis model can't start it. Is that not honesty? I might be one of the most honest people around here.
Evolution predicts uses for junk DNA, too. What prediction contradicts evolution? Apparently some people predicted it would but some evolutionists were skeptical. Here is a quote from a famous professor: The designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles. (Ken Miller, 1994)
In your own words...what is it? I believe in Dawinian evolution also. I have an interest in sealife. I think it is obvious in some cases where you have similar but different species from one location to another much like Darwin's finches. Darwin explains thinks well but it doesn't explain things exceptionally well. I don't think it explains evolution of the flatfish although it did evolve from a symmetrical fish. I don't think it explains IC structures. I has to prove to me that it can explain multilayered overlapping information in the gene.
Claiming that CSI or CMSI can't evolve is a claim, show me why it can't. I can turn this around on you. Show me how evolution can evolve the complex messages within messages of DNA. Here is my reference for the TTSS: Kenneth Miller's Best Arguments Against Intelligent Design Consider that the bacterial flagellum is found in mesophilic, thermophilic, gram-positive, gram-negative, and spirochete bacteria while TTSS systems are restricted to a few gram-negative bacteria. Not only are TTSS systems restricted to gram-negative bacteria, but also to pathogenic gram-negative bacteria that specifically attack animals and plants . . . which supposedly evolved hundreds of millions of years after flagellar motility had already evolved. Beyond this, when TTSS genes are found in the chromosomes of bacteria, their GC (guanine/cytosine) content is typically lower than the GC content of the surrounding genome. Given the fact that TTSS genes are commonly found on large virulence plasmids (which can be easily passed around between different bacteria), this is good evidence for horizontal transfer to explain TTSS gene distribution. Flagellar genes, on the other hand, are usually split into 14 or so operons, they are not found on plasmids, and their GC content is the same as the surrounding genome suggesting that the code for the flagellum has not been spread around by horizontal transfer. Additional evidence for this comes from the fact that the TTSS system shows little homology with any other bacterial transport system (at least 4 major ones). Yet, evolution is supposed to build upon what already exists. Since the TTSS system is the most complex of the bunch, why didn't it evolve from one of these less complex systems and therefore maintain some higher degree of homology with at least one of them? This evidence suggests that the TTSS system did not exist, nor anything homologous, in the "pre-flagellar era". It must therefore have arisen from the fully formed flagellum via the removal of pre-existing parts - and not the other way around. In fact, several scientists have actually started promoting this idea in recent literature.3-8 Now, isn't that just most interesting? - totally unpredictable based on Miller's arguments. Rather, it seems much more in line with the predictions of intelligent design; that what is more functionally complex can indeed degenerate into something that has fewer structural requirements. But, is it just as easy to turn things around and go upstream; so to speak? Not at all. In other words, it is far easier to destroy a car's motility function and still have its headlights work than to go the other way around and get the motility function starting with working headlights. Yet, you won't hear this little interesting fact in Miller's books or lectures. It certainly wasn't brought up by NOVA in their coverage of the Dover trial. Even though the experts presented know of this fact, they probably don't want to present it for fear of confusing their intended audience. Another reference to the TTSS is inside the book "Signature in the Cell".
Um, define devolution? All evolution means is change, so how can you have a loss of change? Is the loss of the ability to synthesize vitamin C not devolution? The gene is broken. Behe has also stated that E.coli has devolved in "The Edge of Evolution". The bacteria casted away genetic information apparently for the purposes of saving energy. Edit: Just to perhaps help clear up any questions, I am about finished for now. I believe in Darwinian evolution and so does Michael Behe. We don't think it explains everything. I believe in chaos theory so extrapolating from that, multiple possiblities occur in the natural world. I believe that an intelligent designer could have infused information into the genome and the flow of chaos would have disguised it. Edited by traderdrew, : Just adding more "complex specified information"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3238 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
I was just reading the article. It is in the online archives in Discovery Institute's website. It is an article about biology. Ok, but I was just using the biology/physics example as an illustration that it wasn't the fact it was ID that got him in toruble, it was the fact that he didn't follow the rules.
It is right for you to ask me for it but I just told you that I have to mine for it. That's fine. Take all the time you want.
I might be one of the most honest people around here. That's quite a claim. I, however, think that I am the most honest person here.
Apparently some people predicted it would but some evolutionists were skeptical. Here is a quote from a famous professor: The designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles. (Ken Miller, 1994) True, but the fact is, it was predicted. And, it is also a fact that there is some DNA that is not currently being used, much like an appendix.
I can turn this around on you. Show me how evolution can evolve the complex messages within messages of DNA. Well, the current evolutionary idea would be that it started with very simple messages, and as replication and natural selection worked to pass on mutations, the message would necessarily get more complex.
Is the loss of the ability to synthesize vitamin C not devolution? The gene is broken. Behe has also stated that E.coli has devolved in "The Edge of Evolution". The bacteria casted away genetic information apparently for the purposes of saving energy. Nope, that's just evolution involving the loss of an ability. As humans, we have lost many abilities that our ancestor species had, but we have also gained many other abilities. That's just how it works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richard Townsend Member (Idle past 4733 days) Posts: 103 From: London, England Joined: |
P.S. I hate this habit of setting people up for Gotcha's. Someone from the evolutionary side was just doing it talking about genetic algorithm's. Its a cheap tactic when creationists do it and it is a cheap tactic when people on the evolutionary side do it too. Can you explain? I'm one of the people who has been putting forward genetic algorithms as strong evidence that evolutionary processes can create information - I believe it genuinely is good evidence.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024