Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 10:52 PM
42 online now:
DrJones*, JonF, ringo (3 members, 39 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,563 Year: 3,600/19,786 Month: 595/1,087 Week: 185/212 Day: 27/25 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
161718
19
2021Next
Author Topic:   INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 271 of 302 (372740)
12-29-2006 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by jaywill
12-29-2006 9:53 AM


I know. Such words are usually associated with intelligent activity.

Same with words like "selection" which evolutionists use.

The phrase "natural selection" is not ever associated with intelligent activity. It's the word "natural" that's the clue.

I didn't read your comments on algorithms. But I know enough about algorithms to know that they are also usually designed and purposeful.

Genetic algoritms simulate the action of unintelligent selection on reproduction with random variation.

If you are a true Darwinist don't you propose a purposeless and blind process? There is no goal or purpose. Evolutionists usually jump all over me when I ask them what is the purpose or the goal of the process of Evolution. They insist that it has no mind, no goal, no purpose.

Of course I say that it has "no mind, no goal, no purpose". But I do not say that it is "random", because that would be a completely different statement, and false.

The activities you are speaking of now are those of intelligent intervention or design.

And prove the efficacity of trial and error.

A purposeless process is taking Edison's approach? Where did it get the "inspiration" ?

Edison said genius was 10% inspiration and 90% persperation. Are you saying that the process of Evolution was "inspired" like Edison? And then it worked hard for millions of years to realize that inspirational idea?

No, of course I am not saying that. You can tell this by the way I'm not saying it. I'm saying the things I actually say. I never in any way said or implied that "the process of Evolution was "inspired" like Edison", as you can tell by the fact that I have made absolutely no such statement.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by jaywill, posted 12-29-2006 9:53 AM jaywill has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 272 of 302 (372742)
12-29-2006 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by jaywill
12-29-2006 9:53 AM


jaywill writes:

Trial and error is hardly a random process.

I know. Such words are usually associated with intelligent activity.

Same with words like "selection" which evolutionists use.

Selection and the trial and error approach of evolution can be observed in any petri dish using bacteria. Over time, trial and error approaches have demonstrated great power in producing novel solutions to complex problems, as genetic algorithms that mimic the process of evolution demonstrate in real time.

If you are a true Darwinist don't you propose a purposeless and blind process? There is no goal or purpose. Evolutionists usually jump all over me when I ask them what is the purpose or the goal of the process of Evolution. They insist that it has no mind, no goal, no purpose.

I hope you don't think I'm "jumping all over you" when I say that, yes, evolution is not guided and has no preconceived goals. Evolution is the response of life to environmental pressures.

A purposeless process is taking Edison's approach? Where did it get the "inspiration"?

To answer this question we return to the bacteria in the petri dish. When a scientist creates adverse conditions in the petri dish and the bacteria evolves to counter them, where does the inspiration come from? The answer is that there is none. The same trial and error process of random mutation combined with selection produces some bacteria that flourish, produce more offspring (divide more often, actually), outcompete their brethren that do not possess the mutation, and thereby ultimately replace them.

No inspiration required.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by jaywill, posted 12-29-2006 9:53 AM jaywill has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 273 of 302 (372752)
12-29-2006 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by Percy
12-29-2006 10:16 AM


Re: common sense? Prevention
Were talking prevention to nip the cancer before it manifests, if one has cancer that needs to be addressed by professionals. However that does not make laetrile (b17) a quack quack remedy. People die for a lack of knowledge and eating 15 almonds a day, alpha sprouts is not detrimental to ones health. It has bonified scientific studies that the cancer cell is targeted by this vitamen. This is an example of intelligent design.

------------------------------------------------

They find seagull fossils in the fossil record, once a seagull always a seagull ring species or not. This is only an example of ID micro-evolution along the heavy metals causing mutations. Because seagull wings are expressed in the fossil record no evidence of macro-evolution.

Breeders are breeding new species of birds, dogs, but they are still only a dog, or a bird. No new kinds are being created even when they use mutagens to create change.

The creationists are fully aware that the mutagens is the believed basis for the unclean creatures making the creatures genetically unclean because of their diet. The bible says some gentile unions basically were eating unclean foods and a Jew and a gentile biblically can mean the offspring is not considered clean until after the 10th generation.

The breeders agree with the bible that genetic diseases expressed take up to 10 generations for the mutated genes to be not to be expressed in the offspring. If the Jews within their congregation were allowed to marry the gentiles it would of affected the Jewish gene pool much like the ring gull mutations are causing ring species, etc...

Mutations are not evidence of macro-evolution simply new species within the kind that was originally created as evidence by the fossil records of sea gulls. If sea gulls were a new kind of creature that would be evidence of macro-evolution. The fossil record goes back to when their was only bacteria in the sediment layers thus no evidence supporting macro-evolution that sea gulls did not exist in the beginning. Ring species is only evidence that were seeing micro-change not macro-change which does not answer origin.

The multitudes of dogs is not evidence that they are a new kind of creature just a different species of the same kind of creature. This is only an example of micro-evolution as expressed by the ID peoples including the creationists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Percy, posted 12-29-2006 10:16 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Phalanx, posted 12-29-2006 12:32 PM johnfolton has responded
 Message 279 by limbosis, posted 12-29-2006 1:47 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

Phalanx
Member (Idle past 3789 days)
Posts: 31
From: Old Bridge, NJ, US
Joined: 10-12-2006


Message 274 of 302 (372760)
12-29-2006 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by johnfolton
12-29-2006 11:53 AM


Re: common sense? Prevention
quote:
Were talking prevention to nip the cancer before it manifests, if one has cancer that needs to be addressed by professionals. However that does not make laetrile (b17) a quack quack remedy. People die for a lack of knowledge and eating 15 almonds a day, alpha sprouts is not detrimental to ones health. It has bonified scientific studies that the cancer cell is targeted by this vitamen. This is an example of intelligent design.

There have been a number of studies that have tested the efficacy of amygdalin/laetrile/"vitamin B17" and failed to do so.

From the National Cancer Institute:

quote:
Preclinical studies have been done with laetrile either alone or combined with other substances. These studies tested the benefits of laetrile against cancer, the side effects of laetrile treatment, where and how laetrile breaks down in the body, and how laetrile and its breakdown products leave the body. Laboratory and animal studies have shown little evidence that laetrile is effective against cancer.

NCI

From wikipedia:

quote:
Laetrile and "metabolic therapy" were administered as recommended by their promoters to 178 patients with advanced cancer for which there was no proven treatment. None were cured or stabilized or had any improvement of cancer-related symptoms. The median survival rate was about five months. In survivors after seven months, tumor size had increased. Several patients suffered from cyanide poisoning.

Wikipedia Article

Find me one clinical study, that's been done by a reputable source, and can be repeated, and you might begin to change my mind. Stop believing everything you hear. There are absolutely no studies that vindicate amygdalin's use.

Edited by Phalanx, : had to make post easier to read.


And the Ignorant shall fall to the Squirrels - Chip 2:54
This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by johnfolton, posted 12-29-2006 11:53 AM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by limbosis, posted 12-29-2006 12:53 PM Phalanx has responded
 Message 277 by johnfolton, posted 12-29-2006 1:31 PM Phalanx has responded

  
limbosis
Member (Idle past 4356 days)
Posts: 120
From: United States
Joined: 12-06-2006


Message 275 of 302 (372768)
12-29-2006 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Phalanx
12-29-2006 12:32 PM


Almond Growers: Diabolic? or just plain Evil?
Find me one clinical study, that's been done by a reputable source, and can be repeated, and you might begin to change my mind. Stop believing everything you hear. There are absolutely no studies that vindicate amygdalin's use.

So, the almond industry is at or near the heart of the cancer cover-up...hmmm.

I gotta start writing this stuff down.

P.S. Who the hell is amygdalin? and why on earth would anyone spell that correctly?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Phalanx, posted 12-29-2006 12:32 PM Phalanx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Phalanx, posted 12-29-2006 1:14 PM limbosis has not yet responded

  
Phalanx
Member (Idle past 3789 days)
Posts: 31
From: Old Bridge, NJ, US
Joined: 10-12-2006


Message 276 of 302 (372773)
12-29-2006 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by limbosis
12-29-2006 12:53 PM


Re: Almond Growers: Diabolic? or just plain Evil?
quote:
So, the almond industry is at or near the heart of the cancer cover-up...hmmm.

It's sad, I know. The almond growers industry, the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, and I even think that the Coca Cola company is somehow involved...we all know how inherently evil Coca Cola is.

In all honesty, it scares me that people believe every little tidbit that they hear.


And the Ignorant shall fall to the Squirrels - Chip 2:54
This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by limbosis, posted 12-29-2006 12:53 PM limbosis has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 277 of 302 (372777)
12-29-2006 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Phalanx
12-29-2006 12:32 PM


Re: common sense? Prevention
Find me one clinical study, that's been done by a reputable source, and can be repeated, and you might begin to change my mind. Stop believing everything you hear. There are absolutely no studies that vindicate amygdalin's use.

It appears there is plenty of reasons not to believe everything you hear in regards that no studies vindicate amydalin's use. The god of this world is a liar thus the cover up. Why did the Sloan-Kettering present just the opposite point of view compared to the lab results leaked to the press that proved otherwise. Money is said to be a root of evil perhaps cancer is a buisness and healthy peoples would affect profits or the drug companies, or perhaps the god of this world presents a lie as if its the truth. Thankfully the people leaked the evidence that vindicates amydalin's use.

It appears that Vitamen B17 (laetrile) smart bomb qualities is another example of intelligent design.

--------------------------------------------

On a much more serious level was the well-publicized Laetrile test conducted at Sloan-Kettering in the 1970s. The final report stated there was no evidence that Laetrile was effective. However, employees inside Sloan-Kettering secretly sent copies of the actual lab reports to the press that proved just the opposite. Dr. Ralph Moss, who was Assistant Director of Public Affairs at Sloan-Kettering, was one of the whistle-blowers. He was fired because of it.

The Sloan report was an insult to truth and a prostitution of science.

A well-documented account of this episode is the chapter entitled "Genocide in Manhattan," in World without Cancer, by G. Edward Griffin.

It will change your view regarding the integrity at Sloan-Kettering.

http://www.cancure.org/letters.htm

Edited by Charley, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Phalanx, posted 12-29-2006 12:32 PM Phalanx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Phalanx, posted 12-29-2006 1:42 PM johnfolton has responded

Phalanx
Member (Idle past 3789 days)
Posts: 31
From: Old Bridge, NJ, US
Joined: 10-12-2006


Message 278 of 302 (372780)
12-29-2006 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by johnfolton
12-29-2006 1:31 PM


Re: common sense? Prevention
Let me quote myself and add the requisite emphasis for you, "Find me one clinical study, that's been done by a reputable source, and can be repeated, and you might begin to change my mind. Stop believing everything you hear. There are absolutely no studies that vindicate amygdalin's use."

You don't even have to find a study that's been performed in the US. I know amygdalin is able to be prescribed in various other countries. Are there any international teams that have published studies that verify amygdalin's supposed abilities?

You finding a "whistle-blower" doesn't seem to be much of a basis for your claims. The anectdotal evidence is no basis for any such claim. The lack of any corroborating evidence tells me that amygdalin, at this point in time, is not a remedy for any form of cancer, nor has it been shown to prevent cancer. When you find something that is not innuendo, and have actual, tangible proof you'll have something to talk about. Up until that point, amygdalin is nothing more than a folk remedy which is on par with snake oil.


And the Ignorant shall fall to the Squirrels - Chip 2:54
This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by johnfolton, posted 12-29-2006 1:31 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by johnfolton, posted 12-29-2006 7:31 PM Phalanx has not yet responded

  
limbosis
Member (Idle past 4356 days)
Posts: 120
From: United States
Joined: 12-06-2006


Message 279 of 302 (372781)
12-29-2006 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by johnfolton
12-29-2006 11:53 AM


Re: common sense? Repercussion
Charley writes:

The creationists are fully aware that the mutagens is the believed basis for the unclean creatures making the creatures genetically unclean because of their diet. The bible says some gentile unions basically were eating unclean foods and a Jew and a gentile biblically can mean the offspring is not considered clean until after the 10th generation.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. You've helped to precipitate the most relevant concern for all of us. And for that, I thank you, Charley. Now let me expand on your quote so that it may help you. I promise not to beat around the bush. Here's a little better taste of the truth...

It is pretty clear to the astute that the god of this world favors the jews above and beyond all else. That much can be deduced by observing the three main godhead religions, and by making the simple determination as to what identity is, and always has been, in control of the vast majority of the world's wealth, education, power, media and political control. I, myself, admit that I do not know whether the jews are a strain or a breed or a race or a religion. So, I will be delicate enough to treat this as a racial issue, because that's what it boils down to, anyway. One thing is absolutely certain, for any reasonable purpose. The jews are not a separate species.

Nevertheless, it would appear that the powers-that-be have been dilligently trying to exterminate other racial groups as briskly as possible. They have been doing this behind the scenes, under the scenes, on top of the scenes, through clever propaganda, through the false fronts of "charitable" organizations for the third world, and so on, and so on, and so on. Just open your eyes, if you doubt this at all.

Now, with the idea that we are intelligently engineered to live shorter lives than what is possible, There is one painful conlusion that can be drawn. And, that is that this world is being carefully cleansed of what this god deems as impure strains of human.

I will arbitrarily concede that I never owned this world, in the first place. But, I WILL ALSO make my case to the god that sits on the inside.

Dear god, you stupid motherf#@ker, if you can't show that you love all humans, at the very least, then why the hell would anyone want to love you, you miserable sh!thead?

Peace for now, Charley. And, thanks again.

Limbosis


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by johnfolton, posted 12-29-2006 11:53 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
TheMystic
Inactive Member


Message 280 of 302 (372808)
12-29-2006 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by ringo
12-14-2006 11:54 AM


moron?
You say [the designer is] an incompetant moron? But obviously he's not. It's a great design. One of the things I was told in engineering school is that if you learn the general principles of engineering you can work in any field because nature is an orderly place. So you have springs in cars and ball-point pens and wings on both airplanes and submarines.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ringo, posted 12-14-2006 11:54 AM ringo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by platypus, posted 12-29-2006 7:50 PM TheMystic has not yet responded

TheMystic
Inactive Member


Message 281 of 302 (372811)
12-29-2006 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by crashfrog
12-14-2006 12:02 PM


You are trying to resurrect the old vestigal organ thing, but you guys continue to miss the obvious macroscopic fact that life in general works extraordinarily well. Besides, how does natural selection explain the continuation of broken parts? Why have they not been weeded out? You illustrate to me why evolution is such a poor model from a purely practical point of view: It leads people to assume and look for errors in the living machine, and to get egg on their faces over and over again as reasons are found for the supposed mistakes. I wonder how far ahead medicine would be, for instance, if the modern scientist assumed the human machine to be a basically perfect design. Notice I didn't say a perfect specimen, but a perfect design.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 12-14-2006 12:02 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by DrJones*, posted 12-29-2006 4:52 PM TheMystic has responded
 Message 283 by Phalanx, posted 12-29-2006 5:14 PM TheMystic has responded

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1806
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 282 of 302 (372816)
12-29-2006 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by TheMystic
12-29-2006 4:37 PM


Besides, how does natural selection explain the continuation of broken parts? Why have they not been weeded out?

Because they do not prevent the organism from passing them on to the next generation.

I wonder how far ahead medicine would be, for instance, if the modern scientist assumed the human machine to be a basically perfect design.

I wonder how far ahead medicine would be if religion didn't get in it's way.

Notice I didn't say a perfect specimen, but a perfect design.

How is it a perfect design? to what standards are you comparing it too?


Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by TheMystic, posted 12-29-2006 4:37 PM TheMystic has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by TheMystic, posted 12-29-2006 5:16 PM DrJones* has responded

Phalanx
Member (Idle past 3789 days)
Posts: 31
From: Old Bridge, NJ, US
Joined: 10-12-2006


Message 283 of 302 (372821)
12-29-2006 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by TheMystic
12-29-2006 4:37 PM


I have to tell you, you are not, by any means, a perfect design. There are innumerable things that would make things a lot better for humans, many of which can be found in the animal kingdom but are lacking in humans. Birds can see into the ultraviolet spectrum, elephants can here in octaves your ears can't, dogs smell nearly 20 times better, bats have echo location, dolphins have sonar, the octopus can change the color of its skin.

I think what you mean to say is that the human design is adequate to survive in its current environment. As for humans having a "perfect design", far from it. You get sick. Towards the end of your life, your major organ systems begin to give out, and your brain becomes more and more inefficient.

To say that your body is a perfect design is an out and out fallacy.


And the Ignorant shall fall to the Squirrels - Chip 2:54
This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by TheMystic, posted 12-29-2006 4:37 PM TheMystic has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by TheMystic, posted 12-29-2006 5:25 PM Phalanx has not yet responded

  
TheMystic
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 302 (372822)
12-29-2006 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by DrJones*
12-29-2006 4:52 PM


Hmmm, guess I better figure out how to quote stuff. But anyway, can you see how the questions you've raised can only be answered within an intelligence framework? How can something be 'broken' unless there was some way it was supposed to be? It's the same for 'perfect design' and 'standards'. So you tell me what 'standards' are. As for 'how far ahead medicine would be if religion didn't get in the way' - that's just bigotry, I suspect. What do you have in mind - stem cell research or something? Ever hear of St Judes hospital or the like?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by DrJones*, posted 12-29-2006 4:52 PM DrJones* has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by DrJones*, posted 12-29-2006 5:26 PM TheMystic has responded

TheMystic
Inactive Member


Message 285 of 302 (372823)
12-29-2006 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Phalanx
12-29-2006 5:14 PM


Well, to stick with our product analogy, why doesn't your cell phone plow snow? To make a human with all the features of every animal on the planet is a silly idea, really. In engineering we call them tradeoffs - weight vs. strength, etc. So the human is designed with the perfect mix of features for his intended purposes. You certainly can't argue this from an evolutionary viewpoint, because to claim the human is somehow defective is to claim there was something else he was supposed to be. Why do you think humans shouldn't get sick or die? Why do you think that is a defect? Where did all these preconceived notions come from? Very, very, very important questions for us to ponder.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Phalanx, posted 12-29-2006 5:14 PM Phalanx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by platypus, posted 12-29-2006 8:03 PM TheMystic has responded

RewPrev1
...
161718
19
2021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019