Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   "Creation Science" experiments.
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 365 of 396 (587486)
10-19-2010 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 358 by Coragyps
10-13-2010 11:24 AM


To repeat myself yet again: JBR, is this ground "designed?".
No. The patterns are the result of natural laws of physics at work in weather patterns. They are no different than the patterns observed in crystals. Interesting, complex, but not particularized (specific).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by Coragyps, posted 10-13-2010 11:24 AM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by Panda, posted 10-19-2010 7:58 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 372 by Taq, posted 10-19-2010 2:28 PM Just being real has not replied
 Message 376 by Coragyps, posted 10-19-2010 3:37 PM Just being real has not replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 373 of 396 (587574)
10-19-2010 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 366 by Panda
10-19-2010 7:58 AM


How do you know that those patterns aren't particularized?
Because the information in the article on the phenomenon tells us that they are formed by a process of water collection, freeze, and thaw in a natural cyclic weather pattern. But suppose we were observers with no knowledge of the natural cycle? How would we determine if they were formed by apc or not? Recall that I defined specificity (aka particularization) as any event or object which exhibits a pattern that matches a foreknown pattern that was completely interdependent of the first.
That means that for an observer to tell if it is particularized, he must be able to recognize it from a completely independent experience. If he does not recognize it from a prior experience this does not of itself mean it is not particularized. It simply means the observer does not have enough data to make a determination. However if he does recognize it from a prior experience then he can say with good certainty that it is particularized.
Just looking at the circles we see a complex pattern, but we do not recognize the pattern as fulfilling any specific purpose. Therefore we would not be able to make a determination. Neither would my five year old. However if we panned out to a wide scale shot and saw that the circles form the pores in a colossal drawing of Sponge Bob Square pants, then that would change. That would be because he would then recognize it from a previous experience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by Panda, posted 10-19-2010 7:58 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by Panda, posted 10-19-2010 3:29 PM Just being real has not replied
 Message 377 by ringo, posted 10-19-2010 5:54 PM Just being real has not replied
 Message 378 by Taq, posted 10-19-2010 6:13 PM Just being real has not replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 374 of 396 (587575)
10-19-2010 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by Granny Magda
10-19-2010 11:37 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
No, not as you were applying it. I cited Lenski, you challenged my conclusions. Lenski did not create E. coli. There was already E. coli in existence, Lenski simply observed it evolving new traits. We are talking about the origins of those specific traits, not the origins of life itself.
Lets look at how the conversation went. It started with hooradmouth claiming that brainless tobacco plants displayed intelligence by adjusting their flowering times to twort catipllar attacks. (See post 270) And thereby threw a wrench in my whole apc concept. To which I pointed out that the changes did not take place within the same generation, but through the natural selection process of choosing alleles that probably already existed in the population but were just not dominant. (See post 278)
My comment was that creationists argue that these alleles were likely designed into the species for just such a purpose, from creation (their origins). To that you commented:
We know that alleles are based on DNA sequences. We know that DNA mutates. We know that mutations in the DNA affect changes in these alleles. We know that these changes include functional changes that allow the organism to independently develop new survival advantages. What more do we need to know here? We basically know that new alleles can be derived simply through the regular process of evolution.
You were obviously referring to Lenski's studies here because that was what you brought up when you were challenged. And you are also clearly using them as evidence to suggest that evolution is the explanation for the "origins" of these alleles. So again, the burden of proof falls directly upon the one using the studies in this manor.
That means it would be on the shoulders of the person using this as "evidence," to prove that the mutations did not occur at a rate that was too high for random mutations to produce.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Granny Magda, posted 10-19-2010 11:37 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by Granny Magda, posted 10-19-2010 9:56 PM Just being real has not replied
 Message 380 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-19-2010 10:53 PM Just being real has not replied
 Message 381 by Nuggin, posted 10-20-2010 2:30 AM Just being real has not replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3936 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 385 of 396 (587702)
10-20-2010 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by AdminModulous
10-20-2010 9:40 AM


Re: Summaries....
Please post your summaries about the successes or failures to provide Creation/ID science experiments in this thread. I think nearly 400 posts is sufficient to establish either sides best possible argument on this matter for now... 1 more post each please.
Very well then. My last post here will simply be to reiterate what I said in post #316 regarding the threads original challenge. I did match and meet the requirements as set forth by the originator. That was to demonstrate some sort of ID science experiment. Getting some of you here to actually define what qualifies as science in your eyes, was like pulling teeth, but finally you did. I then was able to demonstrate how the theory of ID does qualify as a scientific theory. I actually even presented several examples of ID experiments, some of which had even been published in mainstream science journals. Therefore again for all intents and purposes...THE CASE IS CLOSED!
One side question I have for AdminModulous. I ask that you take a careful look at the language used in post #367 and advise me as to whether or not this is common and accepted behavior here at EvC forums? You can let my know via private message.
Thank you to you and all the staff for providing me this opportunity to participate in these threads.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by AdminModulous, posted 10-20-2010 9:40 AM AdminModulous 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