Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
24 online now:
AZPaul3, ringo (2 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,637 Year: 16,673/19,786 Month: 798/2,598 Week: 44/251 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Spotting Beretta's "designer" {Now only 1 summation message per member}
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3705
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 256 of 315 (477646)
08-05-2008 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Beretta
08-05-2008 9:57 AM


Re: The problem isn't the end, it's the means.
dwise1 writes:

What does it take to convert a heart from 3 chambers to 4? A septum, which is a thin muscular wall that splits the amphibian/reptilian ventricle into two.


Well I don't know -that's like saying that to convert a four chambered heart to a three chambered one, all you have to do is get rid of the septum -but that on it's own would definately kill you in the wild -it's just not that simple -a whole lot of other things have to change in order for it to work -and the changes have to be perfectly co-ordinated to keep you alive along the way.

First, removing the septum of a four-chambered heart would indeed make it three-chambered. But that would also cause the oxygenated and deoxygenated blood to mix and result in a reduction in the circulatory systems ability to deliver oxygen to the body. Now in a small cold-blooded animal that wouldn't cause much of a problem, but since a four-chambered heart normally belongs to warm-blooded animal of any size or a large cold-blooded animal (eg, a crocodile) who needs efficient delivery of oxygen to the body, such an operation would impair or even kill.

Why would you even suggest such a thing? What is your point? What possible bearing does that have on the fact that the transition from 3 to 4 chambers is not the impossibility that you erroneously believe it to be?

Second:

What evolutionists do is convert their philisophical prejudice into a sequence or story line that most likely never happened and then just wave their magic wand over it to baptize it as fact.

"most likely never happened"? It happens practically every day! You forget the crocodiles. Born with a three-chambered heart, which converts to a four-chambered heart as it grows larger? "never happened"? WTF?

OK. You claim that the transition from three to four chambers never happened. The crocodiles do it all that time -- collectively that is; each croc does it only once in its lifetime, if it grows to maturity, and it does so without skipping a beat.

Therefore, you are demonstrating to us that your beliefs and your position are contrary-to-fact and contrary to the evidence.

Thank you for clearing that up. Now that you have informed all of us of that fact, when are you going to get around to informing yourself?

dwise1 writes:

just because you personally are unable to understand how something could happen and does happen, that does not constitute any kind of evidence against that something happening....the fallacy that you have been basing most of your arguments on is called "personal incredulity."

Actually it's more about the fact that's there's no scientific evidence to back up the assertion so I'd rather tend towards incredulity until the evidence is there.The opposite of personal incredulity would be "gullibility" I'd think.

If you are going to make such exclusive use of fallacious arguments, you should at least try to familiarize yourself with the informal fallacies.

"Personal incredulity is related to the "argument from ignorance" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance):

quote:
The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]) or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or is only false because it has not been proven true.

The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.

Both arguments commonly share this structure: a person regards the lack of evidence for one view as constituting proof that another view is true.


Rather than causing oneself to fall prey to personal incredulity, the position that you should seek is one of skepticism, withholding acceptance of an idea until you can learn more about it.

And if you are to be honest about it, then, considering that:
1. you would be skeptical of evolution since you deem there to be insufficient evidence for it, and

2. there is vastly more evidence for evolution than there is for ID, then

3. (conclusion) you must also be skeptical of ID.

Of course, you could gullibly accept ID despite its total lack of evidence, but in that case you would not be honest.

We have no problem at all if someone doesn't accept evolution. The problem is when they promote the rejection of evolution and science for all the wrong reasons. If you are going to reject something, then do it for the right reasons. And if you are going to attack an idea, then do it correctly.

Oh, and if you protest that there is indeed evidence for ID, do please present it! That is, after all, what this topic is here for.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Beretta, posted 08-05-2008 9:57 AM Beretta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Beretta, posted 08-06-2008 3:51 AM dwise1 has not yet responded
 Message 259 by RickJB, posted 08-06-2008 4:14 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 3852 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 257 of 315 (477664)
08-06-2008 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Shield
08-05-2008 11:52 AM


Fossils
What do you really know about the fossil record? Tell me more, what didnt convince you? I would like specific examples where the fossil record is falling short.

The evolutionary ancestors of the Cambrian, if they ever did exist, have never been found anywhere where Cambrian fossils are found.As paleontologist Chen says "Very unexpectedly, our research is convincing us that major phyla are starting down below at the beginning of the Cambrian. The base is wide and gradually narrows."
(Doesn't sound much like the 'tree' of life, does it.)

Gould and Eldredge came up with "punctuated equilibrium" for a reason -I wonder what that reason was? Of course it does in a sense solve the problem of the lack of fossil intermediates.Though ultimately all it does is draw attention to the problem.

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change.." (Gould)

How did the coelocanth disappear from the fossil record for some 65 million years only to reappear off the coast of africa in the 1930's. Disappearance from the fossil record is supposed to signify extinction isn't it ?-millions of years of it? Wollemi pines were supposed to be extinct since the age of the dinosaurs -how have they also reappeared? Why have people drawn dinosaurs on cave walls? -Because they were extinct 65 million years ago??? Why are there historical accounts of dragons and pictures of them (dinosaurs) in the history books but they were supposedly extinct millions of years before the people that drew them and spoke of them -historical insanity?

This is not the place for this discussion but it does tell me one thing -dating methods have got to be flawed (plenty of evidence for that) and 'something is rotten in the state of Denmark'.
I have a better idea -what if all the different kinds of creatures were created???


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Shield, posted 08-05-2008 11:52 AM Shield has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Shield, posted 08-06-2008 8:15 AM Beretta has responded

Beretta
Member (Idle past 3852 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 258 of 315 (477665)
08-06-2008 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by dwise1
08-05-2008 3:56 PM


Crocodile hearts
Why would you even suggest such a thing? What is your point?

My point is to say that the idea of adding a septum is too simplistic a solution -much like turning a dinosaur into a bird -do you know how many systems you have to change to make that happen?

And pretty much all we have to show for the conversion is the very questionable archeopteryx as a show case transitional.

Evolutionists have a tendency to be far too credulous because they 'believe' that evolution has happened -that it did is not even a question for them. How it happened is the only sort of question they ask -it's about their philosophy, their preconceived beliefs, it all goes without saying.

What possible bearing does that have on the fact that the transition from 3 to 4 chambers is not the impossibility that you erroneously believe it to be?

Where's our evidence that it did happen?

It happens practically every day! You forget the crocodiles. Born with a three-chambered heart, which converts to a four-chambered heart as it grows larger? "never happened"? WTF?

Well it certainly seems to be programmed into the croc, doesn't it. Much like the caterpillar turning into a butterfly - certain things are programmed into their genetic code -does that prove that a 3-chambered heart of one animal changed via mutations and natural selection into the four chambered heart of other creatures???

If I make copying errors in 'Paint' on my computer -it is feasible that after millions of years of copying errors and selection of the ones that work best, I'm going to end up with 'Photoshop?'
Mistakes are mistakes -genetic errors don't bring about biological integrated complexity -there is no evidence for it, only the belief that it must have happened.

Therefore, you are demonstrating to us that your beliefs and your position are contrary-to-fact and contrary to the evidence.

I repeat, give me your evidence...

"Personal incredulity is related to the "argument from ignorance"

And personal credulity therefore relates to knowledge... or philosophy??

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]) or argument by lack of imagination

So should imagination take the place of evidence?

there is vastly more evidence for evolution than there is for ID

In your credulous imagination perhaps...

We have no problem at all if someone doesn't accept evolution. The problem is when they promote the rejection of evolution and science for all the wrong reasons.

Is the fact tht evolution for the most part runs totally contrary to the evidence any help in understanding my rejection thereof?
Rejection of evolution cannot under any circumstances be equated to rejection of science -I'm all for the repeatable, experimental, factual stuff.It's the forensic imaginary stuff I have no time for. To put the two together is just ludicrous.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by dwise1, posted 08-05-2008 3:56 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Percy, posted 08-06-2008 7:57 AM Beretta has responded

RickJB
Member (Idle past 3245 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 259 of 315 (477667)
08-06-2008 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by dwise1
08-05-2008 3:56 PM


Re: The problem isn't the end, it's the means.
The Croc heart issue is for another thread. The aim of this thread is to discuss evidence for a designer.

I don't wish to play at being a moderator, but I'd be grateful if you started another thread on this issue.

Cheers-


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by dwise1, posted 08-05-2008 3:56 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 260 of 315 (477670)
08-06-2008 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Beretta
08-06-2008 3:51 AM


Re: Crocodile hearts
In your last two replies you used various forms of the word evolution five times and the word ID none. This is typical of your messages in this thread.

This thread is about the evidence for the intelligent designer, not evolution.

This forum is called Intelligent Design, because that's what the topics in this forum are about.

If you'd like to discuss the evidence for evolution then you should go to a thread where that is the topic. Another alternative would be to propose a new topic over at Proposed New Topics. There is no shortage of people willing to discuss evolution with you, but the place to do that is in threads in the Biological Evolution forum. Unless you have something to say about the evidence for an intelligent designer, you really shouldn't be posting in this thread.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Beretta, posted 08-06-2008 3:51 AM Beretta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Beretta, posted 08-07-2008 4:54 AM Percy has responded

  
Shield
Member (Idle past 1117 days)
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-29-2008


Message 261 of 315 (477671)
08-06-2008 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Beretta
08-06-2008 2:56 AM


Re: Fossils
Did you forget to convince me of creation? I did write that the fossil question should be for another thread, what i really want, now that i don think evolution makes sense any more, is you to convince me of creation.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Beretta, posted 08-06-2008 2:56 AM Beretta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Beretta, posted 08-07-2008 2:52 AM Shield has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 262 of 315 (477716)
08-06-2008 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by subbie
08-01-2008 10:46 PM


Re: The problem isn't the end, it's the means.
subbie writes:

Buzsaw writes:

We see the prevailing ID paradigm as apostate to what was considered scientific when creationism had it's day. In fact, I see it as the apostacia (Greek) which the apostle Paul prophesied about in II Thessalonians 2:2 relative to the latter days.

I don't understand a word of it, but it certainly doesn't seem to have anything to do with science.

I was going by memory. Make that II Thessalonians 2:3. Where I was going here is to show that much of science was ID creationist and more scientists were theists until what appears to be prophetically as the latter days. II Thess. 2:3 prophesies that this will be a period of apostacy from ID creationism and other Biblical doctrines. This, imo, is supportive to the existence of an ID creator.

I see other corroborative evidences for ID creationism as follows:

1. The complexity and preciseness of the atmospheric layers required for life on earth.
2. The exact distances of sun, moon and earth and likely other solar bodies effecting life on earth.
3. The precise temperature of the sun required for life on earth.
4. The chemical and material (water, soil, air, etc) makeup of planet earth necessary for life on earth.
5. Forces such as gravity precisely gauged to effect life on earth.
6. Fulfilled Bible prophecy
7. All cultures in world history religious.
8. Complexity of observed life on earth.
9. Complexity of the cosmos.
10. Observance of disorder to order in both the universe and on planet earth.
On and on one could go for reasons to go with intelligent design. :cool:


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by subbie, posted 08-01-2008 10:46 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Coragyps, posted 08-06-2008 10:10 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 264 by Coyote, posted 08-06-2008 10:13 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 265 by bluegenes, posted 08-06-2008 11:05 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 291 by subbie, posted 08-09-2008 8:45 PM Buzsaw has responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5398
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 263 of 315 (477717)
08-06-2008 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Buzsaw
08-06-2008 9:27 PM


Re: The problem isn't the end, it's the means.
On and on one could go for reasons to go with intelligent design.

You left out "the whole surface of this planet is molded in precisely the way required for this mud puddle in this one spot to have the exact shape it has."

And did you know that the earth is three million miles closer to the sun in January than in July?


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Buzsaw, posted 08-06-2008 9:27 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 361 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 264 of 315 (477718)
08-06-2008 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Buzsaw
08-06-2008 9:27 PM


Nonsense
1. The complexity and preciseness of the atmospheric layers required for life on earth.
2. The exact distances of sun, moon and earth and likely other solar bodies effecting life on earth.
3. The precise temperature of the sun required for life on earth.
4. The chemical and material (water, soil, air, etc) makeup of planet earth necessary for life on earth.
5. Forces such as gravity precisely gauged to effect life on earth.
6. Fulfilled Bible prophecy
7. All cultures in world history religious.
8. Complexity of observed life on earth.
9. Complexity of the cosmos.
10. Observance of disorder to order in both the universe and on planet earth.

None of these are scientific evidence. At best they are creation "science" -- in other words, pure apologetics.

About two thirds of these ten can be attributed to evolution. Life adapted to existing conditions; when conditions changed, so did the dominant life forms. If conditions were different, life either would not develop or would have developed differently. Look at the variety of life forms, each adapted to a specific set of environmental conditions.

And Bible prophesy evidence for creation? Like the big flop of the global flood about 4,350 years ago? That is a mainstay of the Bible, but the scientific evidence shows it didn't happen.

Sorry, apologetics and creation "science" don't add up to much.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Buzsaw, posted 08-06-2008 9:27 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Beretta, posted 08-07-2008 2:20 AM Coyote has responded

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 732 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 265 of 315 (477724)
08-06-2008 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Buzsaw
08-06-2008 9:27 PM


Positive evidence of design?!?
Buzsaw writes:

I see other corroborative evidences for ID creationism as follows:

1. The complexity and preciseness of the atmospheric layers required for life on earth.
2. The exact distances of sun, moon and earth and likely other solar bodies effecting life on earth.
3. The precise temperature of the sun required for life on earth.
4. The chemical and material (water, soil, air, etc) makeup of planet earth necessary for life on earth.

The life on this planet is part and parcel of it, and will inevitably fit the circumstances of the planet. What doesn't fit doesn't survive. All four of your categories have changed considerably since the advent of life on earth, and life has changed with them (and changes them, atmosphere and soil for example).

5. Forces such as gravity precisely gauged to effect life on earth.

Life on earth, and any other phenomena observed in the universe, must inevitably fit in with the natural forces of the universe. Were the forces different, the phenomena would be different.

6. Fulfilled Bible prophecy

:laugh: Last time I looked in the Bible at one of your prophesies, it involved armies on horse back with bows and arrows clashing in the middle-east in (according to you) the near future. The Bible contains very good evidence that humans tend to invent ridiculous intelligent designers, but has no evidence for their existence.

7. All cultures in world history religious.

Lots of religions that contradict each other are further evidence of the human tendency to invent things like intelligent designers.

8. Complexity of observed life on earth.
9. Complexity of the cosmos.

9 cancels out 8 because complex life might be expected in a complex cosmos. Complexity as evidence for a designer assumes that nature cannot be complex, and there's no reason to assume that. {ABE} There's also the problem that if complexity requires a designer, the designer must be non-complex not to require a designer itself, and so on with infinite regression.

10. Observance of disorder to order in both the universe and on planet earth.

There's no reason why local pockets of order shouldn't exist. The sun's burning itself towards its end as a star powers local "order" on this planet. And aren't we being a bit subjective and/or contradictory in describing the green mould on this otherwise neat mineral planet as "order" when we constantly scrub our kitchen and bathroom surfaces to rid them of unwanted but persistent life? :)

To say fair, Buzsaw, you're the only one who has attempted to present positive evidence for the Designer on this thread, which is what it's supposed to be about, so your heart's in the right place, even if your head is struggling a little IMO! Well done.

Edited by bluegenes, : marked addition {ABE}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Buzsaw, posted 08-06-2008 9:27 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Buzsaw, posted 08-07-2008 8:37 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

Beretta
Member (Idle past 3852 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 266 of 315 (477730)
08-07-2008 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Coyote
08-06-2008 10:13 PM


Prophecy
Like the big flop of the global flood about 4,350 years ago? That is a mainstay of the Bible, but the scientific evidence shows it didn't happen.

I wouldn't be so sure about that -billions of rapidly fossilized dead things preserved in rock layers all over the earth -couldn't be! Evolutionists flailing around blindly in the light failing to see design in biological systems, they fail to see the evidence for the flood because that is the last thing they want to see. They'll see evidence of a past flood on dry old Mars long before they'll acknowledge a flood on a planet largely covered by water.

And Bible prophesy evidence for creation?

Prophecy is about the future. Watch Israel and when Iran, Russia and various middle east countries attack her, watch them go down.Sept 2001 was the beginning of a new Jewish 7-year period; this Sept begins a new 7-year cycle. We know what's due to happen, we watch the seasons (Jewish holidays and cycles) -we don't know exactly when but we know who, why and where.
Iran and Russia have never been bedfellows before, but they are now. Students of Biblical prophecy saw a Iran-Russia merger a very long time ago when it didn't seem vaguely probable.When Israel became a state in 1948, Christians celebrated because every single end time prophecy revolves around Israel - which made life kind of difficult if Israel didn't exist.

The Jews are waiting for the messiah, the Muslims are waiting for the Mahdi,their messiah (but they can only usher him in with chaos and destruction -which is why Ahmadinejad is so willing) and the Christians have all of this written in their prophecies and they await the return of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, at the end of a 7-year period of tragedy and bloodshed on the earth that begins with a 7-year peace treaty with Israel being signed by someone we call the antichrist.

We watch as Israel negotiates a peace treaty with her enemies; we watch as Iran gets close to Russia (and the other Arab nations mentioned in prophecy); we watch the general breakdown of society brought about largely by the philosophy that matter is all that exists (materialism) and God is dead - while evolutionists carry on blithely unaware of momentous historical events unfolding in front of their blinded eyes.

Design? We can't see design! There's design that looks like design and there's real design and you have to be able to see the difference, you see. Just because biological organisms look designed is no reason to believe that they are!

Human beings are just mutated apes so if we behave like apes then it should be expected. The Bible's out the window so there is no right or wrong and there we have relativism -if you kill somebody for a reason you can justify, then killing is right; if you steal for any number of justifiable reasons then stealing is right.No more standards of right or wrong and every human is capable of justifying everything that they do wrong.

We have imagination, you see -we are not designed -our interconnected body systems fell together by pure chance; copy mistakes and selection of the best ones caused our existance -as if random errors in the rewriting of 'Goldilocks'(written by nobody, of course) could ultimately give rise to 'War and Peace.'

You may feel vaguely sad and just a large part irritated about our 'delusion' about God, but it's nothing compared to the pain we feel for you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Coyote, posted 08-06-2008 10:13 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Coyote, posted 08-07-2008 2:43 AM Beretta has not yet responded
 Message 268 by Phalanx, posted 08-07-2008 2:43 AM Beretta has not yet responded
 Message 271 by RickJB, posted 08-07-2008 4:20 AM Beretta has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 361 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 267 of 315 (477731)
08-07-2008 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Beretta
08-07-2008 2:20 AM


Re: Prophecy [not]
I wouldn't be so sure about that -billions of rapidly fossilized dead things preserved in rock layers all over the earth -couldn't be! Evolutionists flailing around blindly in the light failing to see design in biological systems, they fail to see the evidence for the flood because that is the last thing they want to see.

You are wrong from the start. The flood has nothing to do with "billions of rapidly fossilized dead things preserved in rock layers all over the earth." The age attributed to the purported global flood by scholars is about 4,350 years ago. At that age you are dealing with soils, not rock! Your back yard probably has soils of that age; likely it has soils spanning 10,000 or more years. That is where the evidence for the flood would be.

You should see a discontinuity (from erosion) followed by fluvial deposition. That leaves a very distinctive deposit. The problem is that we don't that type of deposit worldwide. We don't see that deposit in more than a few places where there have been floods. Those floods (such as the ones that created the Channeled Scablands in southern and eastern Washington) can be readily tracked and dated. Most are at the end of the last ice age.

So what you have is small floods at the end of the last ice age are easily found, while a global flood a third that age is not. Reason: the global flood is a local tribal myth.

If you want, I can provide you with some data showing there was no global flood that is so new it isn't even addressed in the creationist websites. Let me know if you are interested.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Beretta, posted 08-07-2008 2:20 AM Beretta has not yet responded

Phalanx
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 31
From: Old Bridge, NJ, US
Joined: 10-12-2006


Message 268 of 315 (477732)
08-07-2008 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Beretta
08-07-2008 2:20 AM


Re: Prophecy
Beretta writes:

Evolutionists flailing around blindly in the light failing to see design in biological systems, they fail to see the evidence for the flood because that is the last thing they want to see.

Do you have evidence of the flood? Is there evidence for the flood? If scientists are turning a blind eye to the flood, present them with evidence. That's the beauty of science, it's willing to change what it holds true at the drop of a hat. Religion, on the other hand, does not go so willingly.

Beretta writes:

Human beings are just mutated apes so if we behave like apes then it should be expected. The Bible's out the window so there is no right or wrong and there we have relativism -if you kill somebody for a reason you can justify, then killing is right; if you steal for any number of justifiable reasons then stealing is right.No more standards of right or wrong and every human is capable of justifying everything that they do wrong.

This has got to be the argument I hate most. "If I don't have the bible to tell me what's wrong, how am i going to know it's wrong?!" Here's an idea, does it seem right to you? No? Then maybe it's wrong. If you can justify why you think it's wrong, even better, then you have a reason. Instead, you decide to take a book as something that is not only correct in its every utterance, it's sacred. Guess what happen, then, when you twist some of the meanings of that book? Perhaps you should think about how easy it is to manipulate that book into saying just about anything you want to say. That same book justified massacres for thousands of years. The same is happening today with the Koran. But god forbid you ever think about that.

So, instead of taking your supposed moral high ground, why don't you think for yourself, instead of consulting the book on what it thinks.

As for your suppositions on design, read this forum. Instead of spouting nonsense, about things that you obviously don't care to learn about, why don't you try reading up on them. I'm tired of trying to get through to people like you. You're ignorant, and not because you haven't been taught. You're ignorant because you choose to be. You are ignorant of science, history, and most importantly social theory. So, in lieu of telling you to move along, I'll leave you with this - go learn something.


And the Ignorant shall fall to the Squirrels - Chip 2:54
This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Beretta, posted 08-07-2008 2:20 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 3852 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 269 of 315 (477733)
08-07-2008 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Shield
08-06-2008 8:15 AM


Creation and Intelligence
Seti scientists agree that if they were to find 'coded information' on a radio signal it would be evidence of intelligence. Irrespective of content, we would know that another intelligent civilization is out there.
It is ironic that such expense, effort and scientific resources are being expended in an effort to find an unseen, undetected, unknown 'intelligence' by looking for "coded information" that, irrespective of content, would confirm another 'intelligent civilization' out there.
So, SETI scientists have a plan for detecting an unseen intelligent being based on detectable design. How will they do this?
By detecting the 'telltale' characterisitc of 'coded' information on radio signals.
Only an intelligent being able to make choices among possible alternatives can organize (ie. code) information.
One of the most remarkable discoveries of the 20th century was the discovery of coded information in the DNA of living things.
"The genetic code is a linguistic system which functions to allow specified genetic symbols to carry biological information. A recent study concludes that the code is the most optimal of a million other random selected possibilities." (SJ Freeland and LD Hurst Journal of Molecular Evolution vol 47 pp 238-248 (1998)}

Information organized per the DNA code is much more complex than any signal SETi researchers would attribute to intelligence, and yet, the coded information of DNA is attributed to an accident of nature.

(Partially reworded from "The Cave Painting - A Parable of Science" by Randy Bullock -an allegorical novel that explores the evolution/ID controversy and is designed to inform and entertain -not to be missed!!)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Shield, posted 08-06-2008 8:15 AM Shield has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by RickJB, posted 08-07-2008 4:02 AM Beretta has not yet responded

RickJB
Member (Idle past 3245 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 270 of 315 (477735)
08-07-2008 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by Beretta
08-07-2008 2:52 AM


Re: Creation and Intelligence
Beretta writes:

Seti scientists agree that if they were to find 'coded information' on a radio signal it would be evidence of intelligence.

Not always, certain types of stars called Pulsars generate regular signals entirely naturally.

Beretta writes:

So, SETI scientists have a plan for detecting an unseen intelligent being based on detectable design. How will they do this?

Their hypothesis is based on the fact that an intelligent civilisation has been observed, namely humanity. That's not to say that their hypothesis isn't limited to a human perspective - other forms of intelligence may have radically different means of communication. Nevertheless, the bottom line is that an intelligent civilisation does exist on this planet. From that fact they can build a hypothesis.

You, on the other hand, have yet to show that there is a "designer" at work in the universe. You have no such data on which to build a hypothesis....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Beretta, posted 08-07-2008 2:52 AM Beretta has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019