Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8943 total)
36 online now:
Aussie, DrJones*, Faith, PaulK, Tanypteryx, Taq, Theodoric, xongsmith (8 members, 28 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*
Post Volume: Total: 864,052 Year: 19,088/19,786 Month: 1,508/1,705 Week: 314/446 Day: 53/59 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence
Coyote
Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 316 of 327 (506683)
04-28-2009 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 314 by NanoGecko
04-28-2009 9:36 AM


Re: The Central Point
But it's likely that the virus lost information that previously expressed as a useful function for example for the virus.
The up side is that the mutation also provided the ability for it to cross species barriers, an advantage.
No new information though.

Please address this question.

Is your insistence on "lost information" and "no new information" based on your belief in "the fall?" Or upon something in science?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by NanoGecko, posted 04-28-2009 9:36 AM NanoGecko has not yet responded

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 317 of 327 (506701)
04-28-2009 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by NanoGecko
04-28-2009 9:36 AM


Re: The Central Point
Nano writes:

Me writes:

Do we not still have viruses and bacteria on this planet?

I was never suggesting that we don't have viruses and bacteria on this planet.

You missed my point. My point was that we have varying degrees of complexity in biological life that still exists today. So how can you say that the direction of evolution is to produce complexity when if that were true we should only have only complex life on Earth not varying degrees of complexity. In other words there is no end game for evolution.

Tony writes:

Me writes:

Are they not less complex than eukaryotaic organisms such as humans? Are bacteria adn viruses not still evolving?

Relatavistic comparisons between various species of organisms is not evidence for an increase in complexity; the increase is assumed in accordance with evolutionary beliefs.

Again you missed my point. You are the one building the strawman argument requiring evolution to increase in complexity not me. Case in point:

Neno writes:

Rather the fact that D.E. is used to account for the existence of "complex" organisms such as man demands that the direction of complexity quantity be such that there is an increase not decrease, I would have thought that a fundamental and logical principle like this was obvious.

My point is that evolution doesn't require anything but to survive. If an organism has to evolve to a simpler life form i.e. viruses, etc to survive, so be it. And vice versa. Complexity and simplicity is just a byproduct of survivability. There is no direction, no goal, no end game.

Nano writes:

It is important that you make the distinction between the real process of natural selection and the assumed process of evolution.

Natural selection is one of the natural mechanisms which makes biological evolution possible. Natural selection is part of evolution. You can't have one without the other.

Nano writes:

I say Dawinian evolution so that it is understood that I am talking about the assumed process by which the diversity of all life on this planet came about over whatever length of time has been agreed upon as necessary for it to happen, presently measured in billions of years.

That is the definition of biological evolution. There is no Darwinian evolution in the context you are talking about. When scientists use the term Darwinian evolution it is in a historical context of talking about the mechanisms of natural selection before the science of genetics was discovered. That's it. You are misconstruing this term to make it fit your own idea of what biological evolution is. Get over it.

Nano writes:

I do not say Darwinian Evolution to confound, trick or apply any devious agenda to the debate but rather to make it clear that I mean the mechanism by which the diversity of all species has come about.

No, I think you are sincere in your beliefs however ignorant and wrong they are.

Nano writes:

Myself writes:

Case in point: the strain of pig flu which has just mutated to transfer not only from pig to pig and pig to human but now human to human?

Mutation is not in question, neither is it doubted that mutation can bring about benefits to an organism such as the swine influenza virus recently in the news, what is likely is that the mutation brought about no new information to the virus.

This is an old ID argument that hold no water but for sake of entertainment, can you define this information please before we discuss whether this so called "information" can increase or decrease? I just want to see what your take on the definition of "information" here is in this context.

Nano writes:

But it's likely that the virus lost information that previously expressed as a useful function for example for the virus.

And what form would this information be in? Specifically.

And how do you know the virus lost "information previously expressed as a useful function"? How do you know this? We presume something doesn't exist over something existing, where there is a lack of evidence for the existence of this "something". Am I not right in this premise i.e. Occam's Razor. So in this case you need to provide evidence that the virus lost this previously existing "information" (whatever that may be).

Nano writes:

The up side is that the mutation also provided the ability for it to cross species barriers, an advantage.

Beneficial for the virus (increase in # of host=increased survivability). Downside for the human species (new pathogen to deal with).

Nano writes:

No new information though.

Again you need to define WHAT this information is and then how do you know new information was not created.

Nano writes:

To illustrate further, hypothetically, if say down the track humans became extinct, then the recently acquired benefit of the virus would no longer be a benefit and the previously mentioned expression for the original useful function has also gone forever.

I don't get it? Why is the virus a benefit to the human species???

Nano writes:

If humans don't become extinct, then this naturally selected for advantage remains, but whatever way you look at it,
I haven't seen one shred of evidence to indicate that natural selection from mutation of this kind is going to build the diverse range of species that we see around us.

Huh? The only natural selection that could occur in this situation would be if the human species built up an immunity to this virus (though mutations pre-existing in the genome which increase survivability or mutations which are the result of someone being inflicted with the virus who survives in which the DNA of the virus implants itself in the gametes of that individual) and passed it down to there progeny. If this virus was deadly enough it could potentially kill off humans that lack this particular genetic trait which increases the survivability against this viral endimic.

Nano writes:

It is always going to be a type of influenza virus, it may alter to some degree, it may gain genetic advantage from mutations, but it is never going to evolve into a bacteria like Eschericia coliform for example or a protozoan no matter how many Billions of years you wish to wait, and that's the point. The complexity is heading in the wrong direction.

Strawman argument. Virus will not mutate into bacteria. No one ever suggested that they would. Even current abiogenesis hypothesis do not include viruses into the path of abiogenesis to higher complexity organisms. Virus are just one of the many dead end branches off the life tree (not to say that they will not indefinately survive as a "species" [viruses are closer in scale to protiens and dna than they are to bacteria and thus are often not included into the category of living organisms], just that there is to big of a jump in evolution from viruses to bacteria).

Again no specific direction to evolution. Whichever one survives, simple and complex, wins. Which is why we still have virus and bacteria around that are more simple (# of cellular components, # of genes, etc) than the more complex multicellular eukaryota organisms.


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by NanoGecko, posted 04-28-2009 9:36 AM NanoGecko has not yet responded

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2481 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 318 of 327 (506713)
04-28-2009 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by NanoGecko
04-28-2009 9:36 AM


Re: The Central Point
It is always going to be a type of influenza virus,

Well what else would you want it to become? The fact that it has mutated makes it different from "last years' version." You say no new information has been added, then how can it infect something it couldn't before? The fact that it still a flu virus is irrelevant, the fact it is a different flu virus is relevant.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by NanoGecko, posted 04-28-2009 9:36 AM NanoGecko has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1242 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 319 of 327 (506727)
04-28-2009 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by NanoGecko
04-28-2009 9:36 AM


Re: The Central Point
It is important that you make the distinction between the real process of natural selection and the assumed process of evolution.

What is the 'real" process and this "assumed" process?

You understand that selection of mutations amounts to evolvement, right? - Even if you disagree, you understand that that is what is taught in Biology class, right?

Selection is the mechanism, the entire process is what's refered to as evolution, there is no seperation of the 2.

Can you be a little less vague and explain what you see rather than what you feel is wrong with the entire scope of biology?

I say Dawinian evolution so that it is understood that I am talking about the assumed process by which the diversity of all life on this planet came about over whatever length of time has been agreed upon as necessary for it to happen, presently measured in billions of years.

The facts are as follows: Diversity exists, that is visually obvious. At any point in the Earths history diversity has existed and fossils show a multitude of diverse species; this too is visually observable.

Do you dispute any of that?

If you don't lets continue: The species we visually observe to exist today did not exist 500Mya, the species that lived 500Mya are not around today, SO, it follows that a process, be it devinely guilded or natural, took place.

Do you agree with the above?

If you do then lets continue: Is it too far fetched for you to believe that a natural process of mutation and selection can, given enough time, lead to what we perceive as different species, but in actuality is just a newly adapted version of the older species, having undergone adaptation due to enviromental changes?

Or, do you believe that there had to be devine intervention each and every time the enviroment changes, that alters the species appearance, so they can survive in the new environment?

Even if you believe in god, is it really too far fecthed to believe that he equipted each species with a mechanism that helps them adapt to their environment so that he doesn't have to continue to re-visit them and alter their appearance?

If you disgaree with any portion of my post then please explain how the process from 500Mya went to bring about the species that we see today, and don't see from 500ya.

- Oni


"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by NanoGecko, posted 04-28-2009 9:36 AM NanoGecko has not yet responded

  
Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 3024 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 320 of 327 (506730)
04-28-2009 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by NanoGecko
04-28-2009 9:36 AM


Re: The Central Point
But it's likely that the virus lost information that previously expressed as a useful function for example for the virus.
The up side is that the mutation also provided the ability for it to cross species barriers, an advantage.
No new information though.

There is proof that random change plus selection can add 'information' to a system in a similar way to evolution. I know of a few examples and there are undoubtedly more.

- Software used by paleontologists to reconstruct the motion patterns of extinct animals uses random change + selection to derive gait patterns. I have seen this demonstrated myself on a BBC television programme - possibly Walking with Dinosaurs. The animated dinosaur initially falls over in a heap, but after many generations of mutation and selection, manages to walk / run efficiently.

- Robot motion patterns have been derived in the same way

- Mutation, sexual recombination and selection have been used to derive electronic circuits and pieces of software that are as effective or more so than those derived by human designers. Here's an extract from a Scientific American article at http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=evolving-inventions

Evolution achieves these feats with a few simple processes--mutation, sexual recombination and natural selection--which it iterates for many generations. Now computer programmers are harnessing software versions of these same processes to achieve machine intelligence. Called genetic programming, this technique has designed computer programs and electronic circuits that perform specified functions.

In the field of electronics, genetic programming has duplicated 15 previously patented inventions, including several that were hailed as seminal in their respective fields when they were first announced. Six of these 15 existing inventions were patented after January 2000 by major research institutions, which indicates that they represent current frontiers of research in domains of scientific and practical importance. Some of the automatically produced inventions infringe squarely on the exact claims of the previously patented inventions. Others represent new inventions by duplicating the functionality of the earlier device in a novel way. One of these inventions is a clear improvement over its predecessor. Genetic programming has also classified protein sequences and produced human-competitive results in a variety of areas, such as the design of antennas, mathematical algorithms and general-purpose controllers. We have recently filed for a patent for a genetically evolved general-purpose controller that is superior to mathematically derived controllers commonly used in industry.

I don't know why ID proponents continue to advance the 'no information can be generated by evolution' argument in the face of evidence like this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by NanoGecko, posted 04-28-2009 9:36 AM NanoGecko has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by Coyote, posted 04-28-2009 4:32 PM Richard Townsend has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 321 of 327 (506731)
04-28-2009 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by Richard Townsend
04-28-2009 4:21 PM


Re: The Central Point
I don't know why ID proponents continue to advance the 'no information can be generated by evolution' argument in the face of evidence like this.

I would suggest that it is because they are creationists in disguise, and they are adhering to the belief that creation was perfect and the fall/sin caused devolution. The only way things can evolve is downward, the only change in information is loss of information.

It is a religious belief, not a scientific finding.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Richard Townsend, posted 04-28-2009 4:21 PM Richard Townsend has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by NanoGecko, posted 05-01-2009 8:18 AM Coyote has not yet responded

NanoGecko
Junior Member (Idle past 3737 days)
Posts: 20
From: NSW Australia
Joined: 04-24-2009


Message 322 of 327 (507035)
05-01-2009 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by Percy
04-28-2009 9:10 AM


Re: The Central Point
Percy writes:

In fact, I think it could only decrease the amount of information in the genome of a population.

You'll get no argument from me on this part of your reply! The decrease is continuing at each new generation of a specie.
It is just as well that the DNA contains so many base pairs of coded information, and that there is a safety mechanism in that usually both parents need to have the copying error (mutation) before the mutation will express itself in the offspring.

Percy writes:

Increases in information come about through mutation.....

Why aren't you supporting this claim with empirical evidence.
In other words, why not provide specific examples of where a mutation has ACTUALLY INCREASED specified and ordered genetic information.
Sure your belief and faith that mutations have brought about an increase in ordered information is clear enough, but where's the proof.
Provide some evidence from the huge range of life out there. Otherwise this claim is nothing more than that, it's just a claim based on evolutionary dogma, circular reasoning and ignorance of the real evidence out there.

Percy writes:

Please see the latter half of Message 310 for an explanation of how mutations increase information in the genome. Since almost every reproductive event results in mutation, obviously increases in information happen all the time.

This explanation, unfortunately is once again missing the point and is no explanation at all.
What I'm talking about is the actual INCREASE in genetic information.
The writing of CODED INFORMATION that expresses for actual functioning biological structures and processes that was not there previously.
Your analogy is only about a mixing of genetic information via the amazing process of sexual reproduction to produce a variety of offspring outcomes.
Sure the offspring is different to it's parents but this is not an increase of genetic information, it is a polymorphic change of genetic information.
These polymorphic changes are common and occur to some degree in every new generation, BUT they do NOT constitute a coded increase in ordered complexity in the genetic code but rather a mixing of current information at the gene level, and consequently these changes express according to implementation instructions for that particular gene, but this certainly does NOT QUALIFY to be counted as an explanation for the writing of actual new ordered and complex information at the base level or the gene level.

I will again try to get the point across.
The NEW information that I am talking about is the ACTUAL NEW INFORMATION THAT IS REQUIRED TO HAVE OCCURRED by those that believe in the evolutionary fairy story. The information that brought about the great biodiversity of species that we see in the world all around us.
The information that has supposedly appeared via evolution from the starting point of the first cell at biogenesis.

Up until now I have NOT seen any examples.
I have seen a lot of rhetoric, but no evidence.
Please cite some examples.
Actual scientific proof that evolution has occurred.

Without any proof to the contrary there is no scientific reason to rule out that all life and the environment in which life exists was specifically and intelligently designed by the actions of God. Let's make one thing clear though, it is the non-scientific commitment to a materialist explanation & philosophy that excludes God from science, not science itself.
In fact the evidence is clear and it is all around us, every time we talk to another or eat some food or sing a song.
We all take a lot for granted, myself included.
I know that some will raise the anthropomorphic principle as an explanation, but really that explanation is ingenuous if you ponder it for a while.

This debate could continue for a thousand years or more, but really IF a person has made his or her mind up that the living world was designed as we see it by evolution, then nothing that I can say here is going to change their beliefs.
That's just the way it is.

Design is deliberate, intentional, considered and specified to achieve a specific result. I do not accept that natural selection acting on mutations (which in fact do occur randomly despite the unsupported objections) is any explanation at all for the immense design abounding everywhere I look.
Please supply some examples that substantiate the claim that mutations add actual orderly complex coding information to the DNA of an organism.


For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20 NKJV

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Percy, posted 04-28-2009 9:10 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by Percy, posted 05-01-2009 8:25 AM NanoGecko has not yet responded
 Message 327 by Percy, posted 05-01-2009 4:59 PM NanoGecko has not yet responded

  
NanoGecko
Junior Member (Idle past 3737 days)
Posts: 20
From: NSW Australia
Joined: 04-24-2009


Message 323 of 327 (507043)
05-01-2009 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 321 by Coyote
04-28-2009 4:32 PM


Re: The Central Point
Coyote writes:

I would suggest that it is because they are creationists in disguise, and they are adhering to the belief that creation was perfect and the fall/sin caused devolution. The only way things can evolve is downward, the only change in information is loss of information. It is a religious belief, not a scientific finding.

Hey!!! No disguise necessary, I most certainly believe that all of Creation was Created by God.

Please find a verbatim extract from the New Testament of the Bible:-
NKJV John 1 vs 1 - 14 below, this describes who the Creator is; Jesus Christ of Nazareth is his name; He is the "I AM".

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

The Bible is a book of history and many other things, but it is mainly about Jesus from Genesis to Revelation.
The above passage makes it very clear that all things were made through Jesus Christ.
We are all free to accept or reject this. I accept this as the truth.
The creation model fits the actual evidence in my opinion more convincingly than the evolutionary model.

Quoting part of your response ..."that creation was perfect and the fall/sin caused devolution. The only way things can evolve is downward, the only change in information is loss of information..." I couldn't have put it better myself and I am glad that you understand the Creation account.

You have stated that belief in Creation is a religious belief; I say no problem! BUT realise this, that equally is evolution a religious belief.
Whether it is realised or not, EVOLUTION IS A RELIGIOUS BELIEF, of this fact there is no doubt, if it were otherwise then I would expect that sound empirical evidence would have been supplied that would clearly indicate that evolution is the mechanism that created the diversity of life as we see it today.
But the fact is, that no vital evidence in support of evolution has been forthcoming, just questionable just-so-stories.

There are a lot of Straw men, & smoke and mirrors "To Prop Up" the faithful's belief in evolution, and to explain away the glaring inconsistencies and uncomfortable truths that are often dismissed out of hand WITHOUT an honest evaluation of the actual facts, simply because the alternative is to those people unthinkable.
Good science doesn't exclude the most obvious solution to a problem, because of a presupposed framework of ideas based on speculation, conjecture and a philosophical belief system.
Good science looks at all the available facts and then draws a conclusion.

Therefore don't dismiss Creation so quickly. The facts fit the evidence very well. Everything was designed by God.


For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20 NKJV

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Coyote, posted 04-28-2009 4:32 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by Percy, posted 05-01-2009 8:38 AM NanoGecko has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18881
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 324 of 327 (507045)
05-01-2009 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by NanoGecko
05-01-2009 6:48 AM


Re: The Central Point
NanoGecko writes:

It is just as well that the DNA contains so many base pairs of coded information, and that there is a safety mechanism in that usually both parents need to have the copying error (mutation) before the mutation will express itself in the offspring.

Whether any gene is expressed is a function of many things, the one we're most familiar with being the dominant/recessive characteristic. In sexual species a mutation does not need to be present in both parents in order to be expressed in the offspring, and so it is possible for a mutation to express itself in the first generation of its appearance. And of course in non-sexual species this isn't an issue.

Your analogy is only about a mixing of genetic information via the amazing process of sexual reproduction to produce a variety of offspring outcomes.

Actually, it wasn't an analogy, I didn't specify the type of reproduction, and it was an example of a single mutation, not allele mixing such as would occur with sexual reproduction. If it helps, it is simplest to think of the example organism as a sighted asexual species with eye color.

You weren't specific about what portions of my example you took issue with, so help me figure this out. Our organism has three alleles for eye color:

  • GGAACG (green eyes)
  • GGAACA (blue eyes)
  • GGCACG (yellow eyes)

Since there are three messages in the message set for this gene, the amount of information it can communicate is log23 = 1.585 bits. This is just straightforward information theory, I'm just setting the table right now, there shouldn't be anything here to take issue with. I think this is what you prefer to call complex specified information, and I'll attempt to accommodate you.

Now we look at a single reproductive event where an organism with the allele for yellow eyes (CGCACG) produces an offspring with a mutation in this gene so that it is now CGCACA, and the offspring has brown eyes. Our message set has now become:

  • GGAACG (green eyes)
  • GGAACA (blue eyes)
  • GGCACG (yellow eyes)
  • GGCACA (brown eyes)

There are now four messages in the message set for this gene, and the amount of information it can communicate is log24 = 2 bits, an increase of .415 bits.

You had several objections to this. One is that the mutation for brown eyes is polymorphic, and I have to completely agree. Having multiple alleles for a gene is the very definition of polymorphism, and increasing the number of alleles is, at heart, the way that mutation increases the amount of information in a genome. You later say:

The NEW information that I am talking about is the ACTUAL NEW INFORMATION THAT IS REQUIRED TO HAVE OCCURRED by those that believe in the evolutionary fairy story.

So you're asking us to describe the type of new information that is required by evolution to rpovide new functions, and my mutation example is exactly that. Mutations are ultimately how evolution provides new function, and I provided an example of a mutation providing a new function, and showed how from an information theoretic perspective that it represented new information. If you think it doesn't provide new information then you have to explain how the message set growing from 3 messages via mutation to become 4 is not an increase in information. log24 - log23 = +.415 is the simple math that you have to address.

Another of your objections dealt with complex specified complexity:

BUT they do NOT constitute a coded increase in ordered complexity in the genetic code...

My example began with an organism with an eye-color gene with three alleles, and you call this complex specified information (you actually used the term "ordered complexity", but hopefully this is a synonym). I then said there was a mutation that added an allele, and you're saying that the added allele is not complex specified information.

But what if I had instead begun my example by saying that the organism originally had four alleles for eye color like this:

  • GGAACG (green eyes)
  • GGAACA (blue eyes)
  • GGCACG (yellow eyes)
  • GGCACA (brown eyes)

You would have said this is the complex specified information for that gene and had no problem with it, just as you did when I began my example with a three-allele gene. So if the allele for brown eyes is complex specified information when it is part of the original genome, how is it not complex specified information when it arises through mutation?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by NanoGecko, posted 05-01-2009 6:48 AM NanoGecko has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18881
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 325 of 327 (507048)
05-01-2009 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 323 by NanoGecko
05-01-2009 8:18 AM


Re: The Central Point
Hi NanoGecko

First you call evolution a fairy tale, then you launch into a diatribe where you call evolution a religion with no evidence that's promoted with smoke and mirrors and just-so stories. You sound like a disciple of Fred Williams where the game is to work in as many denigrating labels as possible into each paragraph.

The validity of your accusations is measured by how well they correspond to reality. By this measure they fair poorly, but much more significantly is the openness with which you concede your religious motivation.

Such openness, especially Bible quotes in a science thread, does cause you serious problems if your goal is to convince school boards, legislatures and text book publishers that intelligent design is science and not religion. The Discovery Institute has made a career maintaining that intelligent design is legitimate science, but they're fighting a losing battle because rank and file adherents such as yourself just can't seem to keep religion out of their science.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by NanoGecko, posted 05-01-2009 8:18 AM NanoGecko has not yet responded

  
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 326 of 327 (507050)
05-01-2009 8:42 AM


Terminal topic drift
I'm closing this down.

Feel free to propose a new thread if you want to start a debate about any of the new issues raised at the end here.

Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.


  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18881
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 327 of 327 (507123)
05-01-2009 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by NanoGecko
05-01-2009 6:48 AM


Re: The Central Point
Discussion has resumed over at Evolving New Information.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by NanoGecko, posted 05-01-2009 6:48 AM NanoGecko 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