Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
578 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, PaulK (3 members, 575 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,808 Year: 21,844/19,786 Month: 407/1,834 Week: 407/315 Day: 3/82 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nature belongs to ID
Taz
Member (Idle past 1628 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


(1)
Message 8 of 146 (661521)
05-07-2012 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Vanessa
05-06-2012 12:38 PM


First of all, before I say anything, I would like to apologize ahead of time if I offended you or anyone else. There are some very important issues here that I'd like to point out, even at the cost of violating the almighty political correctness that I'm suppose to follow.

Vanessa writes:

I was impressed with the level of scientific evidence supporting ID.


May I ask what your qualifications are? The reason I ask this is because if "scientific evidence" were that easy to understand or be evaluated by laymen in just five days, everyone would be a scientist, everyone would be an engineer, everyone would be a professional, etc.

I'm an engineer who has in the past worked as a cop, computer programmer, and lab researcher. And I still don't think I'm qualified to say if evolution is scientific or not. I leave that to real hard working scientists. I can only share with you what my experiences tell me about these things.

Also, I highly recommend you read as much as possible on the dunning-kruger effect.

My experiences tell me that ID advocates rhetorics emphasis heavily on stroking the egos of uneducated people. Again, I really don't mean to offend anyone, but I think it's important to point this out.

Having worked i research for a number of years, I can tell you that scientific evidence isn't as simple as giving a five day conference and stroking people's egos. It takes years of research on a level that most people don't even know about. The data are then analysed by honest to god real live scientists.

Their results are then published and be criticized by honest to god other scientists.

ID proponents have published zero papers. They have made absolutely no progress in their "research". What they do really well is hold conferences and tell non-scientists to vote for them.

Nature is where we see the glory of God.

This is exactly why we think ID is religion masquerading as science.

Why couldn't nature tell us the glory of zeus? Why does it have to be the judeo-christian god?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Vanessa, posted 05-06-2012 12:38 PM Vanessa has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1628 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


(1)
Message 10 of 146 (661536)
05-07-2012 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Nuggin
05-07-2012 3:42 PM


Nuggin writes:

#2) "cdesign proponentists". If you can cut and paste a term out of an entire textbook and replace it in all instances with a different term, yet the concepts, meanings and implications of the text are not altered in any way, then those two terms are equivalent. Cutting and pasting "creationists" out and putting "design proponents" in didn't change any part of the Dover textbook. Therefore the two terms mean the same thing.


I find it laughable that the people who did the edit didn't even know how to use office correctly. Just go to edit, find/replace all, and presto. Instead, they actually went through and replaced each word at a time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Nuggin, posted 05-07-2012 3:42 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1628 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 23 of 146 (661563)
05-07-2012 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Vanessa
05-07-2012 6:55 PM


Re: Evidence for ID?
Vanessa, why couldn't it be zeus? What about vishu? Why does it absolutely have to be your god?

Would you be happy if tomorrow we find out that the designer behind ID is actually the flying spaghetti monster?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Vanessa, posted 05-07-2012 6:55 PM Vanessa has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Vanessa, posted 05-09-2012 3:33 PM Taz has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1628 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 34 of 146 (661607)
05-08-2012 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Vanessa
05-06-2012 12:38 PM


Vanessa, please spend some time to watch the following video. Please pay attention to how the two scientists admit their ignorance of the other guy's field. I have never ever ever ever seen a creationist or IDist be that humble. Usually, they act like they know everything. Real scientists know the boundaries of their knowledge.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Vanessa, posted 05-06-2012 12:38 PM Vanessa has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Percy, posted 05-09-2012 7:43 AM Taz has responded
 Message 61 by Vanessa, posted 05-10-2012 12:22 PM Taz has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1628 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 49 of 146 (661710)
05-09-2012 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Percy
05-09-2012 7:43 AM


Percy writes:

For those of us with limited time, is there a minute mark in the video where we should begin watching to see an example of mutual deference.


It happens throughout the whole video. Richard would say "this is way out of my league" and at other times Tyson would say "I don't know anything about this..."

In fact, at the beginning, Dawkins asked Tyson right away about the nature of the expansion of the universe and that Dawkins has a hard time wrapping his mind around it. But it really comes out during Q&A time. People would ask about something pertaining to physics or biology and the two would say "I don't know..."

The point is real scientists aren't afraid to say I don't know. They know where their boundaries are.

I have never seen a creationist or IDist say something like that. Usually in a debate, creationists know everything. That's probably why they impress the crowd a lot more. Bunch of ignorant idiots...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Percy, posted 05-09-2012 7:43 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1628 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 50 of 146 (661711)
05-09-2012 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Vanessa
05-09-2012 3:33 PM


Re: Evidence for ID?
Vanessa writes:

You said: 'why can't it be Zeus? What about Vishu? ... Would you be happy if tomorrow we find out that the designer behind ID is actually the flying spaghetti monster?'

I have no problem with Zeus (the grandson of Gaia, the female creator of the world, who is then governed by her grandson - one of many God stories of a male God coming from or within the female) or Vishnu (blue immortal representing the energy of creation). Spaghetti monster is not so strange, there is a Spiderwoman in the Hopi culture, who is really a Christ figure - she comes to lead her people when a web covers the Earth.

There are apples in almost every country in the world, though they differ in appearance, taste and name. But they are all apples. Their diversity is wonderful and everyone has their favourite. Such is the same with God - many versions, many names and forms but they all expressions of a guided, purposeful creation - God.


Next time you attend one of these conferences, make sure you ask the speaker(s) my question. My bet is they will infer that the ID has to be the judeo-christian god.

There are those of us who have been keeping track of ID's record since they first made the scene.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Vanessa, posted 05-09-2012 3:33 PM Vanessa has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1628 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


(1)
Message 68 of 146 (661895)
05-10-2012 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Vanessa
05-10-2012 12:22 PM


Vanessa writes:

Thank you Taz for the video. It is not surprising there is civility between people who agree with each other. The test is civility between opponents, irregardless of side. It is erroneous to say only ID supporters lose their cool and resort to nastiness, both sides bare their teeth all too often.
I must say that scientists in general are a calm, non-confrontational lot, at least the ones I know. I've always appreciated that and aspire to that behaviour.


I think you missed my point completely. My point wasn't about civility. My point was about humility.

Watch the video. Throughout the whole video, both scientists admitted many times that they didn't know about this this and that. Whenever someone asked them about something outside their field, they'd say they don't know.

The point is real honest to god scientists are specialists who are fully aware of where their boundaries lie.

Creationists and IDists, on the other hand, seem to know everything about everything.

I've attended many many debates. And it's always the same. There was a debate between a creationist and an astronomer. Throughout the whole debate, the creationist (a christian preacher no less) kept throwing biological questions at the astronomer and the astronomer kept saying he didn't know because it was outside his specialty. The sad part was the crowd became convinced the astronomer was less knowledgable than the creationist because the creationist was able to throw out whole strings of technically sounding biological verbose. I used to work in a genetics lab, so I actually knew what he was trying to say. The creationist made no sense.

That's the point I was trying to make. Real honest to god scientists are very humble and they know exactly where the limits of their knowledge lie. Creationists act like they know everything.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Vanessa, posted 05-10-2012 12:22 PM Vanessa has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 05-11-2012 6:42 AM Taz has responded
 Message 86 by Vanessa, posted 05-12-2012 3:08 AM Taz has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1628 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


(1)
Message 77 of 146 (662002)
05-11-2012 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Percy
05-11-2012 6:42 AM


Percy writes:

But while I do agree with Vanessa on this narrow point, I think your point is the more important one:


Myself and many others here I'm sure have attended many debates. I personally try to go to as many as I can whenever I'm aware of one that's about to come up.

It's always the same routine. The creationist/IDist would use the gish gallop routine of throwing out a whole bunch of stuff from a whole bunch of fields to the scientist he knows only specializes in one field. So, if the scientist is a biologist, the creationist would throw out a whole bunch of nonsensical phrases regarding the cosmos or geology. And it's always the case that the scientist would say that's not his specialty.

What's sad is that 9 out of 10 times the crowd would be cheering for the creationist simply because the crowd is made up of know-it-all idiots who have no grasp on what it means to be a specialist. They think the creationist is smarter and more knowledgable because he could talk about many different fields while the, say, biologist could only talk about biology.

I've worked in several different fields, and so I have a basic knowledge of several different fields. I don't claim to be a specialist of anything. But I do know when someone is BSing. And my BS-meter always goes off when I see a creationist/IDist talking out of their ass.

And you're right. We don't need to go to debates to see this behavior in creationists and IDists. All we need to do is look at this forum. Somehow, creationists here know everything. And the rest of us lowly mortals only know certain fields.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 05-11-2012 6:42 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1628 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 78 of 146 (662004)
05-11-2012 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Percy
05-11-2012 12:58 PM


Nitpick...

Percy, why do you need to lie right through your teeth to make your point, whatever that may be? We all know that Vanessa did not say that. But you have to LIE and say that she did. Stop lying so much. Do you lie often? What a liar that you are. Liar liar.

Sorry, couldn't help myself. If you don't get it, that was a joke. I got burned in court before for "lying" even though I made a typo in one of my reports. The goddamn son of a bitch defense lawyer labeled me as a liar for that typo.

Supreme Lord Percy writes:

I actually thought Vanessa's provided a great example of "a great leap forward in complexity and diversity" in the Cambrian Explosion because of all the new body plans that appeared, but it doesn't align with her argument because it isn't normally considered an example of punctuated equilibrium.


I think Vanessa would be amazed if we point out to her the actual time period, like how long, the cambrian explosion actually took place.

Edited by Taz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Percy, posted 05-11-2012 12:58 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by subbie, posted 05-11-2012 3:02 PM Taz has not yet responded
 Message 81 by Percy, posted 05-11-2012 3:18 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1628 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


(1)
Message 80 of 146 (662007)
05-11-2012 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Vanessa
05-10-2012 12:48 PM


Vanessa writes:

One last thing - our fossil evidence better supports the theory of Punctuated Equilibria which states that biology was static over large periods of time (Equilibria) and then something happens (punctuation) and biology takes a great leap forward in complexity and diversity. Please refer to the Cambrian Explosion as one example.


You've stated probably the most misunderstood/misconception part of evolution among laymen. So, over time I've started to use example that is more to your everyday experience.

When the internet was invented and businesses began to grow in the new niche, we saw an explosion of the .com businesses. The .com bubble then bursted and many many businesses went out of business. Those that survived (amazon, google, etc.) became very successful and stable.

The cambrian explosion was no mystery. Over a span of tens of millions of years, life filled up all the new niches on Earth. What came after were a series of mass extinctions (bubble burst).

See how easy to understand that is? No need for creationist mumble jumble.

Edited by Taz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Vanessa, posted 05-10-2012 12:48 PM Vanessa has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 05-11-2012 3:21 PM Taz has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1628 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 84 of 146 (662014)
05-11-2012 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Percy
05-11-2012 3:21 PM


You're right. It was more like 70-80 million year period. My point still stands, though. New niches opened up new possibilities. That's why these "explosions" were almost always followed by mass extinctions.

Edit.

So, I edited it.

Anyway, if Vanessa is reading this, I hope that she realizes that these explosions weren't really explosions at all. Creationists always conveniently leave out the time span of these "explosions".

I remember one of our discussions here was about how god must have started the earliest civilizations on Earth because they emerged "directly from the stone age" because the time span was only a few thousand years between the stone age and the first civilizations. Someone here then pointed out that according to that logic, Europe is just emerging from the bubonic plagues or the dark ages.

Edited by Taz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 05-11-2012 3:21 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by dwise1, posted 05-11-2012 3:58 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1628 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


(1)
Message 95 of 146 (662128)
05-12-2012 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Vanessa
05-12-2012 3:08 AM


Hm... I'm beginning to see the problem.

Before I got married, an old guy came to me and told me his secret to a successful marriage. He said that whenever I talk to my future wife, always try to see how she will perceive what I say instead what I think I say. Ever since, I've noticed throughout the years that indeed my wife often heard what she wanted to hear from me rather than what I actually said.

I'm seeing the same thing happening today. We're talking about the time span of the cambrian explosion and then all the sudden you make the claim that I claim to know about how life started.

Vanessa, if you're reading this, please try to read what people actually say on here rather than what you think they say. You and I are not married, and so you do not have the benefits of me trying to lean over backward like I do with my wife.

The point I was trying to make is we do know the time span of the cambrian explosion. In a span of 70-80 million years, life managed to fill up many new niches. Creationists always seem to conveniently leave out the time span of the cambrian explosion and just calls it an explosion to give the illusion to laymen that it all happened almost overnight. I'm sure that's what you thought when you mentioned it as one of your examples of rapid evolution (supporting ID).

Edit.

And as a matter of fact, I haven't stated anything beyond what paleontologists have themselves said. At no point did I even hint at proclaiming I know more than they do. I'm a structural engineer, although I have worked in biology research in the past. I'd say I have probably the most basic of basic knowledge in these matters. It's not much, but it's enough to allow me to sniff out BS when I see it. And I assure you, IDists and creationists use a lot of BS in debates.

Edited by Taz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Vanessa, posted 05-12-2012 3:08 AM Vanessa has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1628 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


(2)
Message 98 of 146 (662142)
05-12-2012 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Vanessa
05-12-2012 1:49 PM


VAnessa writes:

Nature develops life through identifiable systems and processes but we choose to explain the evolution of life as the result of arbitrary cosmic events and chromosomal abnormalities. But this is not how Nature works - look at how a plant grows, how a baby gestates, how a butterfly forms - in each case the development of life is part of a system with transformative stages - just like our fossil record. Does this not make you curious?


I really really wanted to refrain from commenting on this.

You've obviously never done any type of research, whether it's biology, physics, engineering, math, etc. In the physical sciences, there are entire disciplines of study devoted to what are essentially random mutation coupled with natural selection.

When I was in grad school, I worked for some time with a physics professor in his funded research into chaotic systems, fractal dimensions, and prime numbers. He needed me as part of the group ot write out some software for him. While there, I managed to learn a great deal about how random mutation and natural selection extends beyond biological systems. Practically speaking, everything in the known universe is affected by random mutation, or random chances, and natural selection, or some kind of natural parameter enforced by the natural world.

For instance, if you were to investigate a chaotic system like the weather, there is no better demonstration than using the monte carlo method, something that mathematicians use everyday to explain natural phenomena. In layman's term, chaos is synonymous with randomness. But to physicists and mathematicians, chaos really means ordered randomness.

The point I'm trying to make is so far I've seen nothing from you but layman's superimposition of non-scientific experiences onto scientific endeavor. Sure, you use a lot of big words like naturalism, arbitrary cosmic events, and chromosomal abnormalities, but you lack the experiences and in-depth understanding of the sciences behind those words.

Again, I've done considerable researches in the past. I must admit that I'm at best a novice of the physical sciences. But I have just enough experiences in these matters to be able to tell when someone is just throwing out big words without the understanding of the sciences behind them. I see this all the time with creationist and ID lecturers and debaters. I'm seeing it now in you.

This brings me back to the very first question I asked you in this thread. May I ask your qualifications? I see a lot of big words and phrases being thrown around without much in-depth understanding behind those words and phrases.

Edit.

So, to recap, I'm an engineer who have done researches in past lives and there are those here who are honest to god biologists, chemists, physicists, mathematicians, etc.

Edited by Taz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Vanessa, posted 05-12-2012 1:49 PM Vanessa has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1628 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


(1)
Message 107 of 146 (662231)
05-13-2012 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by shadow71
05-13-2012 6:56 PM


shadow71 writes:

After seeing your posts over the years, I don't think humility is one of your virtues.

Perhaps you ought to think about that.


You know the saying all the jerks get the girls? Why is that? The answer is simple. Younger/naive women/girls can't tell the difference between being an ass and being confident. Since being an ass is easy to achieve than gaining self confidence, we end up with more jerks than not.

When we're talking about academic stuff like evolution, mutation, natural selection, etc., often times people who are not well equipped in these areas can't tell the difference between confidence from years and years of education and experience and ego from studying the bible and faith in god.

Think about that.

Edit.

By the way, I make the same observation in gay men as well. All the gay assholes get all the gay younger/naive guys. Same reason.

Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Edited by Taz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by shadow71, posted 05-13-2012 6:56 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by shadow71, posted 05-21-2012 7:15 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1628 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 113 of 146 (662289)
05-14-2012 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Percy
05-14-2012 8:41 AM


Percy writes:

I'd go one step further - auto-naturalism as a scientific philosophy never existed.

I know that she just made up that word, but I think she did an ok job at trying to convey what she meant. She's saying that evolution as a natural process that works on its own (auto) doesn't make sense since everything just looks too perfect and designed.

The problem with this line of thinking is that ongoing researches in all types of scientific fields continue to show very complex patterns that appeared to be "designed" arise automatically from natural processes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Percy, posted 05-14-2012 8:41 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019