Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
63 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons (2 members, 61 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,347 Year: 4,459/6,534 Month: 673/900 Week: 197/182 Day: 30/47 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   TOE and the Reasons for Doubt
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 2870 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 511 of 530 (570868)
07-29-2010 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 509 by Wounded King
07-29-2010 9:17 AM


Re: cell reproduction
I think that is sort of like how people try to write off the irreducible complexity argument for the bacterial flagellum, by suggesting that everyone of the many complicated moving parts, which must act in complete concert to produce a workable effect COULD have had some other use previously, without the obligation of somehow explaining what all those other uses were, and how they came to change to their final use.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 509 by Wounded King, posted 07-29-2010 9:17 AM Wounded King has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 513 by Taq, posted 07-29-2010 5:48 PM Bolder-dash has replied

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3225
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 512 of 530 (570957)
07-29-2010 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 510 by Bolder-dash
07-29-2010 9:22 AM


Re: cell reproduction
No, not at all. It is just that those functions developed incrementally.. not all at once.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 510 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-29-2010 9:22 AM Bolder-dash has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 513 of 530 (571029)
07-29-2010 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 511 by Bolder-dash
07-29-2010 9:26 AM


Re: cell reproduction
I think that is sort of like how people try to write off the irreducible complexity argument for the bacterial flagellum, by suggesting that everyone of the many complicated moving parts, which must act in complete concert to produce a workable effect COULD have had some other use previously, without the obligation of somehow explaining what all those other uses were, and how they came to change to their final use.

The entire ID argument is based on the principle that it is impossible for the parts to have had a different, selectable function in the past, therefore ID. If you can show in principle that the proteins could have had different functions, such as in the type III secretory system, then the argument has been refuted.

The problem here is that the ID argument is an argument from ignorance. It is a logical fallacy. "I don't know" does not equal "Therefore the intelligent designer did it".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 511 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-29-2010 9:26 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 514 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-29-2010 7:14 PM Taq has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 2870 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 514 of 530 (571045)
07-29-2010 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 513 by Taq
07-29-2010 5:48 PM


Re: cell reproduction
No absolutely not. I think you are arguing a fallacy.

What the ID argument says is that you don't know. And as long as you don't know, your theory is not robust, and does not deserve the status of being the only theory taught in schools-and at the very least, the strengths and weaknesses of the theory need to be taught in schools. And yet your side fights every time their is a challenge to have that taught. That is how your entire side deals with all the things which you don't know. You just make things up.

You make up that there could have been other uses for all the thousands of parts that are involved in every one of the millions upon millions of systems and bodily functions on earth. But you have absolutely no way of telling us what those supposed other purposes for each small unit was.

If your side was truly an honest scientific endeavor, it would INSIST that everyone of the weaknesses of your argument be taught in every school in the country. But that is not what happens. What happens is you claim it is a done deal, and you just have to take care of a few details. Nonsense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 513 by Taq, posted 07-29-2010 5:48 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 515 by crashfrog, posted 07-29-2010 7:24 PM Bolder-dash has taken no action
 Message 517 by subbie, posted 07-29-2010 7:43 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 526 by Taq, posted 07-30-2010 4:08 PM Bolder-dash has taken no action

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 707 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 515 of 530 (571048)
07-29-2010 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 514 by Bolder-dash
07-29-2010 7:14 PM


Re: cell reproduction
What the ID argument says is that you don't know.

We disprove that argument by knowing.

But, of course, you've just called Taq's argument a "fallacy" - and then made the exact same argument! Astounding.

And as long as you don't know, your theory is not robust, and does not deserve the status of being the only theory taught in schools

You act like we ennoble theory by teaching it in schools - that it's somehow the highest status a scientific theory can aspire to, to be taught to disinterested 11-year-olds who'd rather be playing Xbox. I think that's completely and stupidly backwards - it should be our schoolchildren that we ennoble, by making sure they learn the best possible science, not science watered down and polluted by an anti-intellectual religious agenda.

And yet your side fights every time their is a challenge to have that taught.

We already teach the strengths and weaknesses. The "weaknesses" of the theory your side wants to teach aren't weaknesses, they're lies. ID proponents want the legal privilege to lie to children. Can you explain why the should have it?

But you have absolutely no way of telling us what those supposed other purposes for each small unit was.

Sure we do - we can observe the function of those units in today's living organisms. Every claim of "irreducible complexity" put forth by the ID "research program" has been rebutted with living examples.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 514 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-29-2010 7:14 PM Bolder-dash has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33913
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 516 of 530 (571049)
07-29-2010 7:25 PM


Here is the problem Bolder-dash.

There is NO Intelligent Design model that explains anything.

There is no Creationist model that explains anything.

Anyone that makes a claim that either an Intelligent Design model exists or that a Creationist model exists is simply wrong.

There is nothing worthy of being taught related to either Intelligent Design or Creationism.

Them's the facts.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 495 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 517 of 530 (571051)
07-29-2010 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 514 by Bolder-dash
07-29-2010 7:14 PM


Re: cell reproduction
What the ID argument says is that you don't know.

Amazingly enough, not only do you not know anything about evolution, but you don't know anything about ID either. What you say may be your argument, but it certainly is not intelligent design's argument.

Oh, BTW, still waiting for one study suggesting the existence of anything requiring a non-materialistic explanation.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate


This message is a reply to:
 Message 514 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-29-2010 7:14 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 518 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-29-2010 9:18 PM subbie has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 2870 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 518 of 530 (571057)
07-29-2010 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 517 by subbie
07-29-2010 7:43 PM


Re: cell reproduction
Sorry but your posts are getting more desperate and silly. I don't owe you anything, because you really aren't saying anything stimulating or interesting.

If you want to find out about studies of paranormal activity, feel free to go study it, read some books. I don't really care. If someone is going to take the stance that all things are impossible that they don't believe in, then ok, live with your own narrow mind, that is not my problem.

The ID movement if you want to cal it that, makes some pretty simple demands. Allow the discussion of all aspects of the ToE in schools, including the strengths and weaknesses of the theory. But your side continually fights that, like they have with the Academic Freedom bills in Florida schools. They are AGAINST teaching both the strengths AND weaknesses of the theory-even though polls show that 3/4 of all Americans are for this.

So if any side can be said to be stifling science, it appears to be yours, because of your own fear of open discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 517 by subbie, posted 07-29-2010 7:43 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 519 by Coyote, posted 07-29-2010 9:28 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 521 by subbie, posted 07-29-2010 9:56 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 524 by crashfrog, posted 07-29-2010 11:23 PM Bolder-dash has taken no action
 Message 528 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-30-2010 4:33 PM Bolder-dash has taken no action

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1346 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 519 of 530 (571058)
07-29-2010 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 518 by Bolder-dash
07-29-2010 9:18 PM


Strengths and weaknesses and other lies...
"Strengths and weaknesses" is simply the most recent tactic from the creationists in an effort to get their particular brand of religion taught in public schools.

The "weaknesses" that creationists are continually harping about are nothing more than PRATTS, dusted off and run out once again in the hope that they can gain some traction this time.

It's like "teach both theories." When that didn't work they dumped that tactic and turned to "strengths and weaknesses."

Both tactics rely on deception and misrepresentation.

If you actually had the "truth" or TRUTH or TRVTH why is deception and misrepresentation necessary?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 518 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-29-2010 9:18 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 520 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-29-2010 9:48 PM Coyote has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 2870 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 520 of 530 (571059)
07-29-2010 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 519 by Coyote
07-29-2010 9:28 PM


Re: Strengths and weaknesses and other lies...
So what are you saying, that the strengths and weaknesses of the theory shouldn't be taught because you feel it is a strategy?

So children should not be taught accurately because your side wants to win a strategy war?

That is about the level of intellectual honesty your side has fallen to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 519 by Coyote, posted 07-29-2010 9:28 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 522 by Coyote, posted 07-29-2010 10:04 PM Bolder-dash has taken no action
 Message 527 by Taq, posted 07-30-2010 4:11 PM Bolder-dash has taken no action
 Message 529 by Blue Jay, posted 07-31-2010 12:44 PM Bolder-dash has taken no action
 Message 530 by jar, posted 07-31-2010 1:14 PM Bolder-dash has taken no action

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 495 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 521 of 530 (571060)
07-29-2010 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 518 by Bolder-dash
07-29-2010 9:18 PM


Don't go away mad, just go away
Sorry but your posts are getting more desperate and silly. I don't owe you anything, because you really aren't saying anything stimulating or interesting.

Actually, you do. Forum Rule 4 says:

quote:
Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

You've been asked by several people here to provide a cite to the studies that you keep claiming exist. Instead, you've dodged and ducked, and now simply refused.

Seriously, if you're not here to discuss and debate in good faith, why not just leave and stop wasting everyone's time.

The ID movement if you want to cal it that, makes some pretty simple demands. Allow the discussion of all aspects of the ToE in schools, including the strengths and weaknesses of the theory.

Again, you do nothing more here than demonstrate your own ignorance. The ID movement has its own positive theory, of sorts, that it wants to get taught in schools. Read the opinion in Kitzmiller V. Dover if you don't believe me.

But your side continually fights that, like they have with the Academic Freedom bills in Florida schools. They are AGAINST teaching both the strengths AND weaknesses of the theory-even though polls show that 3/4 of all Americans are for this.

What 3/4 of Americans think about science is quite irrelevant. If it's a question about what to teach in science class, it really should be scientists that make that decision, since they are the ones who know what science is. And somewhere in excess of 90% of scientists agree that the ToE is a scientific theory.

So if any side can be said to be stifling science, it appears to be yours, because of your own fear of open discussion.

Right, that's why we have this forum board, where even someone as ill-informed as you can post your opinion. That's why there are all those laws prohibiting any discussion of creo drivel exist, right? No, the only thing we are against is passing religion, and bad religion at that, off as science and spending tax dollars to do it.

Are there any laws against teaching creationism is private schools, even in science class? No. Why not? Because that's not unconstitutional.

You refuse to provide evidence to back up your patently ridiculous assertions. You shovel the same horse manure time and time again, even after others point out why it's horse manure. You don't even have the redeeming quality of being entertaining.

I think it's time for you to leave and let the adults talk for a while, ok Chuckles?


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate


This message is a reply to:
 Message 518 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-29-2010 9:18 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 523 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-29-2010 10:25 PM subbie has seen this message

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1346 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 522 of 530 (571061)
07-29-2010 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 520 by Bolder-dash
07-29-2010 9:48 PM


Re: Strengths and weaknesses and other lies...
So what are you saying, that the strengths and weaknesses of the theory shouldn't be taught because you feel it is a strategy?

"Strengths and weaknesses" is a ploy used by creationists to get their religion back into the schools. It has nothing to do with science and what science is actually doing. It is, in fact, anti-science.

So children should not be taught accurately because your side wants to win a strategy war?

That is about the level of intellectual honesty your side has fallen to.

Children should be taught accurately what science is doing, not what one narrow interpretation of one of the world's 4,000 extant religions wants them to be taught.

"Strengths and weaknesses" is an anti-science propaganda campaign, and amounts to nothing but religious apologetics; it has no place in public school classrooms.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 520 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-29-2010 9:48 PM Bolder-dash has taken no action

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 2870 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 523 of 530 (571062)
07-29-2010 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 521 by subbie
07-29-2010 9:56 PM


Re: Don't go away mad, just go away
Hahaha...until you can start providing evidence for the mechanisms of your theory, and for demonstrating that natural selection is capable of building complex body systems, don't waste your breath grandstanding about evidence that you say doesn't even exist, and even if it did, it would be worthless.

This thread is entitled "The ToE, reasons for doubt." Here is one reason for doubt, you have no evidence!!!!

Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 521 by subbie, posted 07-29-2010 9:56 PM subbie has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 525 by crashfrog, posted 07-29-2010 11:27 PM Bolder-dash has taken no action

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 707 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 524 of 530 (571065)
07-29-2010 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 518 by Bolder-dash
07-29-2010 9:18 PM


Re: cell reproduction
If someone is going to take the stance that all things are impossible that they don't believe in, then ok, live with your own narrow mind, that is not my problem.

"It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out." - Richard Dawkins

Openmindedness is one thing, but if you're so credulous that you don't require any evidence at all before you're willing to believe in people who claim to have psychic powers, or who can miraculously heal your illnesses, or can see the future, or do other things that are too good to be true, you're just opening yourself to being conned by hucksters and scammers.

You need to exercise some skepticism, Bolder, if only for your own protection. What are you going to do the next time you see a Miss Cleo ad on TV? Don't you see how your credulity could make you a target?

If you want to find out about studies of paranormal activity, feel free to go study it, read some books.

Which books? Please be specific - author and title, please.

They are AGAINST teaching both the strengths AND weaknesses of the theory-even though polls show that 3/4 of all Americans are for this.

We're against lies being told in science class. That's the only thing we're against. It's not the role of legislators to dictate how or what science should be taught to children. Schoolchildren deserve the best science education, not made-up silliness like ID and creationism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 518 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-29-2010 9:18 PM Bolder-dash has taken no action

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 707 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 525 of 530 (571067)
07-29-2010 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 523 by Bolder-dash
07-29-2010 10:25 PM


Re: Don't go away mad, just go away
Here is one reason for doubt, you have no evidence!!!!

You may recall I presented <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/">a significant amount of evidence</a> for evolution, which you ignored.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 523 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-29-2010 10:25 PM Bolder-dash has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022