Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What exactly is ID?
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 181 of 1273 (539902)
12-20-2009 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by traderdrew
12-20-2009 10:36 AM


Re: Aquaporins
Two points of fact:
1. Membranes are made of lipids, not proteins; these do not have the same constituents as proteins unless you mean the individual atoms of which they are composed.
2. Membranes are all water permeable. Aquaporins provide additional control of water flow, but even without them water can cross membranes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by traderdrew, posted 12-20-2009 10:36 AM traderdrew has not replied

Briterican
Member (Idle past 3948 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 182 of 1273 (539930)
12-20-2009 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by traderdrew
12-20-2009 11:19 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
traderdrew writes:
Intelligent Design does not specify the identity of the designer. It does not tell us what type of clothes to wear or what kind of religious services to perform.
I believe that Master Yoda seeded the Earth with life. It is up to me to find his signature somewhere in DNA and I am going to find it i'm telling you!!!
Precisely. You have decided in advance that there must be a designer and now you are on a quest to find the evidence for him. Meanwhile, real scientists are not on a quest to disprove a designer - they are neutral in this regard - they are simply looking for evidence that might help provide explanations. The evidence continues to suggest no "signature", from Yoda or anyone else.
It is irrellevant that you don't describe or identify the designer - the very fact that you proceed under the assumption that there is one invalidates your method.
Instead you should be asking "What does the evidence tell us about the past and the nature of our origins?."
If you objectively ask that question, and let the evidence lead where, in fact, it does lead, you will find yourself without the need for a controlling intelligent agent or designer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by traderdrew, posted 12-20-2009 11:19 AM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by traderdrew, posted 12-20-2009 9:50 PM Briterican has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 183 of 1273 (539940)
12-20-2009 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Smooth Operator
12-20-2009 7:23 AM


Position, Not Person
Just so no one misses it, all participants please read Administrative Message 180 dealing with one-liners.
As threads progress participants tend to stray from addressing the issue to getting personal.
Please remain respectful and refrain from arguing the person. Argue the position.
Rule #10: Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.
Thanks
AdminPD

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-20-2009 7:23 AM Smooth Operator has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 184 of 1273 (539943)
12-20-2009 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Dr Adequate
12-20-2009 11:57 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
You did, in fact, omit those sentences, because they wreck your assertion that the article sounds like it could have come from the Discovery Institute.
I can interpret this as calling me a liar however, I cast what I suspect is an insinuation aside. I researched "transpermia" in the Discovery Institute | Public policy think tank advancing a culture of purpose, creativity, and innovation. website.
POSTMAN: Let me go back to God for a second since some folks at Discovery think I’m obsessed with the question. Here’s what’s difficult for me to wrap my head around. And I think Peter’s [?]. If the designer is unnamed but nearly all the advocates say that in their religious view it’s God, but that’s not a scientific view. There’s very few advocates of intelligent design who name a designer other than God, correct?
MEYER: Umm, there are a few that are religiously agnosticMichael Denton, or the Buddhist, Jeffrey Schwartz, the neuroscientist at UCLA; Berlinski, who’s sympathetic design but not a proponent, is agnostic religiously. So, and I think some interesting examples, not from our camp but from the evolutionary, the world of evolutionary biology, would be people like Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, and even Francis Crick, who speculated that life had been designed and transported here from outer space, the so-called transpermia theory. So there are other options, and that’s one of the — we’re not trying to be sneaky. I think one of the things we objected to about your article is that it slightly hinted that we were being disingenuous in this, and maybe you didn’t mean that.
I don't agree with everything Dembski says or does and I will leave it at that. I think religion should stay out of the science class. In fact, I think ID should stay out of the science class but I don't think Darwinism should be held up on a pedestal saying it is the the only pathway to the truth. I think ID belongs in philosophy and so does atheism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-20-2009 11:57 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-20-2009 11:28 PM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 189 by Coyote, posted 12-21-2009 12:09 AM traderdrew has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 185 of 1273 (539944)
12-20-2009 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Briterican
12-20-2009 5:03 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
the very fact that you proceed under the assumption that there is one invalidates your method.
I was just looking for a law that I wanted to post but I forgot the name of it. I remember thinking it was based on the assumption Darwinism was absolutely true. Anyway, I thought of something else here.
Charles Darwin had apparently been influenced by the work of the geologist Charles Lyell. In Lyell's book "The Principles in Geology", a methodology is summarized as the following: Being an attempt to explain the former changes of the Earth's surface, by references to causes now in operation.
Lyell believed when historical scientists are seeking to explain events in the past, they should not invoke unknown or exotic causes, the effects of which we do not know. Essentially, historical scientists should cite "causes now in operation." "The present is the key to the past."
I realized after I read this, by utilizing this method to explain the past, it is based on the "assumption" that nothing extraordinary or supernatural played a part in the history of how life was formed and developed.
It seems to me your statement also renders naturalistic and materialistic explanations invalid since Darwinism was formed under the assumption that there wasn't a designer involved.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Briterican, posted 12-20-2009 5:03 PM Briterican has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-21-2009 12:11 AM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 191 by Coyote, posted 12-21-2009 12:20 AM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 192 by Nuggin, posted 12-21-2009 12:35 AM traderdrew has replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 186 of 1273 (539945)
12-20-2009 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by cavediver
12-20-2009 12:52 PM


Re: Aquaporins
The first cells would have had no machinery at all.
documentation please
I realized I stand corrected in one part of my posts. However, the above cut and paste I do not buy.
To buy it would say no machinery would be necessary for a cell to replicate itself. Would it not need any of the following in this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fiJupfbSpg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by cavediver, posted 12-20-2009 12:52 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by cavediver, posted 12-21-2009 7:09 AM traderdrew has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 187 of 1273 (539947)
12-20-2009 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Percy
12-20-2009 10:56 AM


Re: The Big Lie
Once again, I can't disagree with anything you stated although, we are clearly on opposite sides of the main issues. You seem to be one of the more rational people around here.
Religion to me is based upon "abstract concepts of morality" but I don't believe that all religions are totally based upon this. Atheism is partly based upon abstract concepts of morality or at least you can derive moral concepts from it. I have no desire to be bonded by religion but I wish to seek and understand the wisdom from following some of its rules.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Percy, posted 12-20-2009 10:56 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 188 of 1273 (539952)
12-20-2009 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by traderdrew
12-20-2009 9:20 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
I can interpret this as calling me a liar however, I cast what I suspect is an insinuation aside.
I suggested that you were cherry-picking. Which is the same as you said about me, and with less justification.
But this seems to conflate two different issues. The notion that life on Earth originated somewhere else and then evolved on Earth to its present diversity (transspermia) is quite different from the proposition that life didn't evolve at all but was specially designed by hyperintelligent aliens.
---
Incidentally, why they classify Frederick Hoyle as coming from "the world of evolutionary biology" is beyond me. He was an astronomer and he hated evolution. In fact, many of the most popular creationist arguments originated with him. "747 in a junkyard", anyone? "Mutations can't increase information" --- ring any bells? "Archaeopteryx is a fake" --- ever come across that one?
---
I think ID should stay out of the science class but I don't think Darwinism should be held up on a pedestal saying it is the the only pathway to the truth.
I don't think it is. Like any other of our major scientific concepts, it's open to examination and challenge.
I think ID belongs in philosophy and so does atheism.
Atheism, certainly. But to call ID a "philosophy" is to accord it a dignity that it does not in fact possess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by traderdrew, posted 12-20-2009 9:20 PM traderdrew has not replied

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


Message 189 of 1273 (539953)
12-21-2009 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by traderdrew
12-20-2009 9:20 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
I think religion should stay out of the science class. In fact, I think ID should stay out of the science class...
Agreed. Now convince other religious practitioners who are pushing ID and we'll all be happier.
...but I don't think Darwinism should be held up on a pedestal saying it is the the only pathway to the truth.
Science does not deal with truth, Truth, TRUTH, or even TRVTH. Science deals with data and theory. Scientific theories are the best current explanations that we have for a particular dataset. Where does this "truth" nonsense come into things? Sounds more like religion and dogma than science.
And what "Darwinism" is I haven't a clue. I studied fossil man and evolution for six years in graduate school and never once heard the term "Darwinism." Is that primarily a creationist term? I certainly do not hear that term in scientific circles?
Exploring this farther: is "Darwinism" a term cooked up by creationists in an attempt to discredit science? Or some specific branch of science? Is it a "guilt by association" term, as who would want to be associated with an "-ism"? And does it seek to discredit Darwin personally in hopes that doing so will discredit his theory--after 150 years of withstanding all the challenges brought against it? Is "Darwinism" a act of desperation when all the other attempts creationists have tried have failed to discredit the theory of evolution? Or is it just sloppy thinking?
I think ID belongs in philosophy and so does atheism.
Fine by me. Just leave science alone, as science is neither ID nor philosophy nor atheism.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by traderdrew, posted 12-20-2009 9:20 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 12:43 AM Coyote has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 190 of 1273 (539954)
12-21-2009 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by traderdrew
12-20-2009 9:50 PM


Actualism
Charles Darwin had apparently been influenced by the work of the geologist Charles Lyell. In Lyell's book "The Principles in Geology", a methodology is summarized as the following: Being an attempt to explain the former changes of the Earth's surface, by references to causes now in operation.
Lyell believed when historical scientists are seeking to explain events in the past, they should not invoke unknown or exotic causes, the effects of which we do not know. Essentially, historical scientists should cite "causes now in operation." "The present is the key to the past."
I realized after I read this, by utilizing this method to explain the past, it is based on the "assumption" that nothing extraordinary or supernatural played a part in the history of how life was formed and developed.
Well, this raises a in interesting point.
Consider this apple:
How do you suppose it came into existence? Well, of course you think it grew on an apple tree.
But you didn't see it grow on an apple tree, did you? And you must admit that it could just have been poofed into existence by God for mysterious reasons of his own, couldn't it?
Let us admit the philosophical possibility. Nonetheless, the two propositions --- that it grew on an apple tree and that God magicked it into existence can't seem equally good even to the most devout theist. You should prefer the naturalistic explanation, because there is a naturalistic explanation. If you actually saw apples poofing into existence out of nothing, then you would have grounds to seek a supernatural explanation.
Now, how does this apply to the sciences that vex creationists? Consider geology, since you brought it up. The reason that we should prefer an actualist explanation is that one exists. Everything in the geological record looks like it was formed by actual processes. Chalk looks like it was formed from coccoliths --- if you look at it through a microscope, you can see the coccoliths! Aeolian sandstone looks exactly like lithified aeolian sand. Flaser deposits look exactly like the deposits that the tide forms on certain beaches. Glacial till looks exactly like the till we can see being deposited by modern glaciers. Turbidites look just like they were deposited by turbidity currents. Coal looks just like compacted peat. And so forth, I think I've labored the point enough.
Everything in the geological record looks like the product of actual geological processes, just like the apple looks just like those things that grow on apple trees. What are we meant to make of this?
Well, back in the nineteenth century, when this was becoming apparent, a chap called Philip Gosse, who combined Biblical literalism with a knowledge of geology that became painful to him, wrote a book called Omphalos, the theme of which was that the Earth was in fact only 6,000 years old, but that God had created it to look as though the geological record had been formed by the slow action of actual geological processes.
Now, in a way you can't argue with that. He could have done, he's God, he moves in mysterious ways. He could have done that just as he could have poofed the apple into existence, complete with what looks exactly like an apple leaf still attached to it.
But, as in the case of the apple, one cannot regard the two hypotheses --- actualism and Omphalos --- as being equally acceptable, even if one believes devoutly in an omnipotent God possessed of supernatural powers. We should have to abandon actualism if we had positive evidence for the supernatural, some geological equivalent of watching apples poof into existence. But we don't. So we have to see actualism as superior, and follow wherever it takes us.
If we abandon this way of thinking, we abandon science and knowledge altogether. How could one even make a statement such as "the sky is blue today" --- it might be green with pink spots, and God might be using his supernatural powers to make it look blue.
God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c. 1150

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by traderdrew, posted 12-20-2009 9:50 PM traderdrew has not replied

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


Message 191 of 1273 (539955)
12-21-2009 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by traderdrew
12-20-2009 9:50 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
I realized after I read this, by utilizing this method to explain the past, it is based on the "assumption" that nothing extraordinary or supernatural played a part in the history of how life was formed and developed.
It seems to me your statement also renders naturalistic and materialistic explanations invalid since Darwinism was formed under the assumption that there wasn't a designer involved.
And you would rather work under the assumption that there was a designer, or something supernatural, involved?
Fine. Knock yourself out! Establish a field of investigation based on that assumption and see if you get useful results. Establish a consistent method of investigation and gather data and see if you can make any progress.
But leave science alone.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by traderdrew, posted 12-20-2009 9:50 PM traderdrew has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 192 of 1273 (539956)
12-21-2009 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by traderdrew
12-20-2009 9:50 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
I realized after I read this, by utilizing this method to explain the past, it is based on the "assumption" that nothing extraordinary or supernatural played a part in the history of how life was formed and developed.
So, by your standard, all claims for cause and effect are equally valid/invalid.
If I push a ball it moves forward because I applied force to it. -or- If I push a ball it moves forward because invisible unicorn riding trolls tether magical ropes and drag it.
In the first case, I am ASSUMING that observable testable rational forces are sufficient to explain what's happening.
In the 2nd case, I am ASSUMING that invisible non-existent forces are behind the actions.
Since in both cases I'm assuming something, we can not possibly design any sort of machinery based on either scenario - since any such machine would be inherently fatally flawed by these assumptions.
That's REALLY what you want to argue here? Are you sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by traderdrew, posted 12-20-2009 9:50 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by traderdrew, posted 12-21-2009 8:58 AM Nuggin has replied
 Message 221 by traderdrew, posted 12-22-2009 12:57 AM Nuggin has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 193 of 1273 (539973)
12-21-2009 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by traderdrew
12-20-2009 9:59 PM


Re: Aquaporins
documentation please
For what? In reply to accusations that abiogenesis is not possible, all I need to do is provide plausible hypotheses for how it could be possible. If the first cells were to be found to have complex ready-made chemical machinery, then I would be the first to subscribe to the idea that some intelligent agent had made them...
To buy it would say no machinery would be necessary for a cell to replicate itself.
The first cells were most likely simple lipid vesicles - empty shells. Replication is simply an overly large shell pinching off into two vesicles, prompted by turbulence in the supporting medium. Any polymers trapped inside the vesicle would be randomly divided between the new cells. Polymers that aided vesicle growth, by for example catalysing the production of new lipids, would be selected for. And thus rudimentary "machinery" begins...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by traderdrew, posted 12-20-2009 9:59 PM traderdrew has not replied

traderdrew
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009


Message 194 of 1273 (539977)
12-21-2009 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Nuggin
12-21-2009 12:35 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
Let's go back to the comment this minor tangent stemmed from in the first place.
the very fact that you proceed under the assumption that there is one invalidates your method.
I would agree with Stephen Meyer that every scientist or everyone has a motif but motives are irrelevant to accessing the validity of a claim. I think the evidence should stand on its own and the motivations behind the statements should not disqualify them. I think when someone questions the integrity or motives of an individual, I suspect a red herring.
I have seen this on this forum and other forums time and time again. It is as though the naturalistic evolutionists have nothing else to say but to attack the person and not the substance of the debate. If someone is going to attempt to silence a debate this way then, this isn't science because I think science should advance by examination and debate.
I might comment on the rest of you guys later but then again, maybe I won't.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Nuggin, posted 12-21-2009 12:35 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Nuggin, posted 12-21-2009 9:55 AM traderdrew has not replied
 Message 217 by Briterican, posted 12-21-2009 7:46 PM traderdrew has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 195 of 1273 (539979)
12-21-2009 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by traderdrew
12-21-2009 8:58 AM


Re: Flaws of ID
I think the evidence should stand on its own and the motivations behind the statements should not disqualify them. I think when someone questions the integrity or motives of an individual, I suspect a red herring.
It's fine to think that, however you are wrong.
In the case of ID, the proponents have made their motivations clear by writing the Wedge Document.
You can not call foul on people pointing out that a claimant has ADMITTED that they aren't interested in the facts, but rather are politically motivated to replace real science with Christian Fundamentalism through specific calculated actions.
It is as though the naturalistic evolutionists have nothing else to say but to attack the person and not the substance of the debate. If someone is going to attempt to silence a debate this way then, this isn't science because I think science should advance by examination and debate.
I'm personally offended by this statement. Not because it's wrong, but because it presumes that anyone on your side of the debate has EVER offered anything of substance.
For YEARS now we've REPEATEDLY asked for data, for descriptions of the mechanisms, for definitions, for the "scientific theory" of ID.
Your founders have admitted under oath that they haven't done any experimentation to back up their claims nor do they ever intend to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by traderdrew, posted 12-21-2009 8:58 AM 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