Message 526 of 530 (571184) 07-30-2010 4:08 PM

Reply to: Message 514 by Bolder-dash 07-29-2010 7:14 PM

We do know that homologs of flagellar proteins do you have selectable function which falsifies the claim that there are no selectable steps in the construction of the flagella.

So what is the ID step by step explanation for the construction of the flagella? If there is no detailed ID explanation then it had to evolve somehow, just by default, right? Isn't this exactly how the ID argument works?

We don't have to make it up. It is a fact. Homologs of the flagellar proteins are found in the type III secretory system.

Why schools where the audience is largely ignorant of the science behind it? Why not do some research and present it at scientific conferences or submit the research to peer reviewed journals? You know, do some actual science instead of making flawed arguments to school boards?

Message 527 of 530 (571185) 07-30-2010 4:11 PM

Reply to: Message 520 by Bolder-dash 07-29-2010 9:48 PM

That scientists have not found an evolutionary pathway for every feature in every species is not a weakness of the theory. It is a lack of knowledge. That is why we need to train new scientists, to figure these things out. The problem here is that IDers are not interested in figuring out these mysteries. They want to stop research into these areas before the answer is found. That is the whole reason for trying to do away with teaching evolution in schools. ID is the cockroach that scurries away when the light of knowedge hits the room.

Message 528 of 530 (571186) 07-30-2010 4:33 PM

Reply to: Message 518 by Bolder-dash 07-29-2010 9:18 PM

However, what creationist liars mean by "weaknesses" is halfwitted lies that they've made up. The "weaknesses" are the same worthless anti-scientific propaganda that they've failed to smuggle into school under the rubrics of "creation science" and "intelligent design", and putting a new label on this doesn't make it any less shit.

Anyone finding a real weakness in the theory should publish. Indoctrinating schoolchildren with pathetic lies might serve creationists' political agenda, but is no substitute for actual science.

I'd be for teaching any real weaknesses.

Bullshit is not science. I'm happy to "stifle" bullshit, if by "stifle" you mean "not make compulsory in public schools".

Interesting lie. What we are actually afraid of is a situation where science teachers are forced to tell what they know to be lies to students who deserve better.

We're all in favor of open discussion. Indeed, I believe we're currently having one. To compel science teachers to lie to children is not, however, "open discussion".

Message 529 of 530 (571343) 07-31-2010 12:44 PM

Reply to: Message 520 by Bolder-dash 07-29-2010 9:48 PM

The "weaknesses" that creationists want taught are not actually weaknesses of the ToE, but are the exact same talking points that creationists have wanted to pass into science curricula for a very long time.

It's at least a bit more honest of creationists though, because they're no longer presented these talking points as their own counter-theory, but only as arguments (complaints, really) against ToE. But, they're still the same inaccurate and meritless talking points that they've always been.

Basically, the education of children is far more accurate now than it would be if this creationist strategy were to be implemented.

Darwin loves you.

Message 530 of 530 (571352) 07-31-2010 1:14 PM

Reply to: Message 520 by Bolder-dash 07-29-2010 9:48 PM

Here is the big problem.

Even if the Theory of Evolution was falsified it adds NO weight, validity or support for the nonsense called Intelligent Design, Creationism or Special Creation.

If you want help in understanding what you need to do for Intelligent Design, Special Creation or Creationism to be taken at all seriously, I started a thread years ago with the steps you need to take.

We always try to help the Creationists and ID supporters by trying to teach them what they need to do.

quote:

---

What is an Articulate Informed Creationist?

EvC is supposedly a place where the supporters of Evolution or Creation can present the best argument in defense of their position. But what does that really mean?

Type 1
If someone is going to support some form of Biblical Creation, they have several choices; they can take the emotional route and use special pleadings to the Bible. This relies solely on appealing to authority, saying that regardless of the evidence the Biblical Creation myth(s) will be all that is accepted.

Type 2
A second possible method they could use is to present a series of models that explain what is seen better than the current models, and then actually subject those models to examination through the peer review system. The models though must be demonstrable and explain things even better than the existing models, and should they call on some magic trick like (insert miracle here)� they must actually be ready to support with evidence such an incident, or if God is involved, be ready to place God on exhibit to be tested and verified.

Type 3
There is a third tactic we often see, but it is flawed and irrelevant right from the beginning and so should simply be rejected, perhaps with a chuckle, as soon as it is entered. That tactic is to try to attack the existing models. Those that use such a tactic thinking it advances the Creationist position should just be dismissed, hopefully with an explanation that even if the TOE, as an example, were shown to be totally wrong, it would in no way add support or validity to any other competing position. The fact that one might be wrong does not imply that the other might be right.

That third tactic needs to be emphasized.

Showing errors in one system, model, technique or theory does not support some other system, model, technique or theory.

So that leaves only the two other options.

The first is simple denial. Biblical Creationists can simply say "I believe the (insert whatever special creation theory the poster likes) and you cannot convince me otherwise."� The problem with that approach is it makes for short or boring threads.

The second option, presenting models that explain the universe we live in better than the existing models is all that is left. Unfortunately, that would require a scientific approach. It would need to have the internal consistency and correlative characteristics of the current models as well as providing naturalistic and testable models for all things seen. Further, it would have to be inclusive. The model presented would need to explain geology, biology, genetics, cosmology, astronomy, physics, chemistry and every other area explained by the current models. It also requires that either God be placed in evidence, to be tested just like any rock or slime mold, or God be left out. If they cannot place God out there to be examined by exactly the same methods used in any of the current models, then God needs to be just tossed aside as another irrelevant part of the model.

So are any of the various approaches possible?

Certainly the first one is valid. It is possible to simply state that you are not going to accept any evidence that refutes your position.

The third is just silly. Disproving one model adds no weight to any other.

The second is conditionally possible. If someone were able to first prove God exists and do so in a way that can be independently tested by believers and non-believers alike, if God can be shown to be just another natural phenomena and not at all super-natural, then God could be part of the model. The alternative approach to the second method is to exclude God totally, and to simply present new models that explain what is seen better than the existing models.

That one, the alternative Second method would be the most likely to actually produce any results. It is though the most difficult of the options available. It would be the most exciting thing to happen in Science to date and something that would be of extreme value.

The problem is that it would have to create models for all of Science. That is a mammoth undertaking. For example, a model is needed to create sand.

Sand seems simple. Under the current model, rock is weathered by forces that can be observed and tested. The main causative factor is expansion and contraction, either of the rock itself by being exposed to hot and cold cycles, or through the expansion of water as it turns to ice. It is a basically simple mechanism, can be tested and shown to work. Once a smaller piece is broken off the larger rock, that piece in turn is split further by the same forces and broken by mechanical forces during transport. The end result is many smaller rocks.

If someone is going to create sand by some other model, they would need to present a model that explains sand as well as the current model.

That step, model creation, would need to be repeated for every thing we see. In addition, all of the different models must be supportive; a model must explain what is seen but also not create conditions that are excluded by other evidence. For example, rocks can also be pulverized into small pieces by a high speed impact, but that will also leave evidence in a change in the type of smaller particles produced.

Water can even be used to cut rock. But again, such a model would have to specify the pressure at the cutting point, the mechanism that produced the phenomena, and demonstrate that the product actually seen, sand that is identical in composition and form to the sand produced by the current model, is produced.

But what do we see at EvC?

We see a few type 1s, those who simply deny the evidence. When it is pointed out that all they have is denial, they often get angry.

Then we get LOTs of type 3s. They try attacking the TOE or dating as though that somehow enhances their position. When it is pointed out that what they are doing is really irrelevant to supporting Creationism, they often get angry.

We get a few of the initial type 2as, those that simply want to (insert miracle here). They spout on about "Fountains of the Deep" and "Pre Flood States"� and "Vapor Canopy"� but when it is pointed out that they must first produce evidence that any such things even exist, their sole recourse is to quote Bible passages out of context or spin fantasy yarns. Then they get angry.

We have had few members of type 2b post here, so not much can be said about their reactions.

So the question is, how can we allow each type to present the best possible support for their position and is there any reason that their argument should not be countered?

---

From this thread

Edited by jar, : fix sub-title