|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence to expect given a designer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I want them to know that we aren't the bumbling fools the world paints us to be. That you don't have to check your brain at the door with the hats when you enter a church. That its not a blind leap into a dark chasm, but rather a faith based on evidence. Then perhaps you should post less often.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3936 days) Posts: 369 Joined:
|
Scientific observation A: same as above. That's just being stupid with my comments. I never said a supernatural deity is the conclusion for things that began. I said coming from something else is the conclusion for things that began.
Scientific observation B: thunderclouds "began". Conclusion: the production of thunderclouds require a supernatural deity. Microbiologists do not claim that specified sequences require an intelligent source. Also, DNA comes about through natural mechanisms all of the time. It is called biological reproduction. Oh really? I can name several off the top of my head if you like that do make that claim. Spetner, Stephen Myer, Frank L. Marsh, Gary E. Parker, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Douglas Axe, Guillermo Gonzalez, Albert Voie, John A. Davison, D.W. Snoke, David Berlinski, Scott Minnich, Stephen Meyer, Wolf-Ekkehard Lnnig, H. Saedler, Granville Sewell, David L Abel, Jack T Trevors, Robert Marks, Kurt Dunston and David KY Chiu, etc.
You are drawing the bull's eye around the bullet holes. No rather you are slinging the "bulls" crap. Your crappy rebuttal relies on the notion that there are any number of possibilities that exist. In other words, that there is something like a "barn" to paint a bull's eye on when the bullet hits. The notion that life could have formed any number of ways given any number of variables is just a way of stinking up the facts. Like I told Percy, in order to validate this argument it becomes necessary to present at least one life form that exists which could not have come from these particular Earth parameters. How many actual non Earth life forms can you name? I'll give you a hint... you can count them all on zero hands.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
A notable feature of victims of the apologetic mentality is a tendency to invent their own "facts"
quote: How many of these people are microbiologists? I know for a fact that Behe is a biochemist, Dembski isn't any sort of biologist, Gonzalez is an astronomer, Snoke is a mathematician, Berlinski has no biological qualifications either, Meyer is a philosopher and Sewell is another mathematician.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3936 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
It was created by NASA through a process that involved no intelligent input into the arrangement of the wires.
So was it that a fat hippo sat on Thumbelina's umbrella, or did an intelligently designed computer crunch out a configuration based on intelligently programmed algorithms?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Paulk writes: Berlinski has no biological qualifications either David Berlinski: Academic career: Berlinski was a research assistant in molecular biology at Columbia University[3], and was a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes tudes Scientifiques (IHES) in France. Mathematics and biologyBerlinski has written works on systems analysis, the history of differential topology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics. Berlinski has authored books for the general public on mathematics and the history of mathematics. These include A Tour of the Calculus (1997) on calculus, The Advent of the Algorithm (2000) on algorithms, Newton's Gift (2000) on Isaac Newton, and Infinite Ascent: A Short History of Mathematics (2005). Another book, The Secrets of the Vaulted Sky (2003), compares astrological and evolutionary[disputed — discuss] accounts of human behavior.[citation needed] In Black Mischief, Berlinski wrote Our paper became a monograph. When we had completed the details, we rewrote everything so that no one could tell how we came upon our ideas or why. This is the standard in mathematics.[6][better source needed] David Berlinski - Wikipedia Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So was it that a fat hippo sat on Thumbelina's umbrella, or did an intelligently designed computer crunch out a configuration based on intelligently programmed algorithms? Who designed the antenna?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3936 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
How many of these people are microbiologists? I know for a fact that Behe is a biochemist, Really... that's your big come back Paul? I just splattered a list off the top of my head of ID scientists, for speed, but you don't think if I slowed down picked through them more carefully I can come up specifically with microbiologists?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3936 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
But we haven't examined all of those 500 billion marbles, just 9 of them. We have little evidence to say that the one is unique. So... is science something we base on what we haven't observed, or on what we have?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
PaulK said that Berlinski had no qualifications in biology, and you haven't controverted him as such; though noting that he has worked for a biologist is something to be said for him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Yeah really. Scientist' havn't studied every fossil either, but you wouldn't ever know it from the things they say about fossils.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
PaulK writes: Microbiologists do not claim... JBR writes: Oh really? I can name several off the top of my head... PaulK writes: How many of these people are microbiologists? JBR writes: ...you don't think if I slowed down picked through them more carefully I can come up specifically with microbiologists? well, err, that's sort of the point. Strangely, when you make a claim, some of us here sort of expect you to be able to back up that claim. Not reply with "well, don't you think I could substantiate my claim if I really tried to?" Or are we being unfair?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So... is science something we base on what we haven't observed, or on what we have? The things we have observed. If we base it on the things we have observed, then we would estimate that over 10% of planets have life, based on the sample we have. Perhaps this would be a little naive, but at least it would be based on observation. Instead, you based your argument on something we haven't observed, i.e. the imagined lifelessness of planets that we haven't actually checked for life. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yeah really. Scientist' havn't studied every fossil either, but you wouldn't ever know it from the things they say about fossils. I picked it up from the things they say about fossils. Perhaps I'm more perceptive than you. For example, here's what Darwin had to say on the subject:
That our palaeontological collections are very imperfect, is admitted by every one. The remark of that admirable palaeontologist, the late Edward Forbes, should not be forgotten, namely, that numbers of our fossil species are known and named from single and often broken specimens, or from a few specimens collected on some one spot. Only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored, and no part with sufficient care, as the important discoveries made every year in Europe prove. What have scientists subsequently said about fossils that led you to think differently? Perhaps you could quote some paleontologist saying something along the lines of : "Since we've found every fossil there is, there's really no point in anyone funding any further field expeditions"? Or perhaps we don't live in Opposite World. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Chuck77 writes: David Berlinski: Academic career: Berlinski was a research assistant in molecular biology at Columbia University[3] Hmmm...
quote: Part of 1971? and whose sole academic output at that time was a paper on the *philosophy* of biology. Sorry, PaulK's point stands.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: That's YOUR big comeback? You THINK that there are SOME microbiologists in your list of microbiologists? You spattered off a list of ID supporters - they aren't all scientists despite your assertion above - and tried to pass it off as a list of microbiologists? Thanks for making my point.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024