Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 8:27 AM
29 online now:
Hyroglyphx, jar, RAZD, Stile (4 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,846 Year: 9,882/19,786 Month: 2,304/2,119 Week: 340/724 Day: 3/62 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
222324
25
2627Next
Author Topic:   "Creation Science" experiments.
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 666 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(1)
Message 361 of 396 (586464)
10-13-2010 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by Just being real
10-13-2010 8:05 AM


Re: CASE CLOSED!
Aaa...but you are mistaken my friend. You do have to exercise faith in gravity to hold you to the earth. In fact you do it so much that you do not even think about it. You do not walk around holding on to things that are bolted down to the earth. Why is that? It is because you have faith in your experience and knowledge of gravity. If you thought that at any second it could turn off and you would go floating away, then you would behave differently. By the way that may be the way a lot of people define faith, but in the Christian experience, it is defined a little differently.

You are confusing "gravity" with "continuation of gravity".

I don't have "faith" in gravity. Gravity exists. It's observable, testable. I can (theoretically) go to outer space and experience significantly less gravity. etc.

What you are assuming is that I have faith that the laws of the natural world will not suddenly radically change.

I would argue that you don't need to have faith in a negative. I don't have "faith" than things AREN'T going to radically change. My entire life experience has been that the laws have never changed. The ENTIRE human experience has been that the laws have never changed. From what we can tell of astrophysics, geology, chemistry, etc, the laws have never changed.

I don't take it on "faith" that they will continue to behave as they have always behaved, it's a testable series of observations which demonstrate that this is the nature of our universe.

No faith required.

Note that this verse describes a person first coming to the understanding that God exists, and then placing their faith in that God, that He will reward those who diligently seek Him. So are we just supposed to have blind faith that God exists? Not at all.

Right, according to the Bible, you should have "faith" in order to _earn a reward_.

Sigh. Just when I think this religious is as childish as it can possibly be, some Christan comes along and provides me with a quote making the religion look even worse.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by Just being real, posted 10-13-2010 8:05 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 666 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


(2)
Message 362 of 396 (586466)
10-13-2010 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by Just being real
10-13-2010 8:05 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
#1) Not all bacteria rapidly adapt to ever changing environments and food sources. Some do. Some don't.

I never said they all do. I said they all have a need to.

And they don't. Some bacteria haven't changed in a VERY VERY long time. You are making unfounded primary claims and then basing your conclusions upon those errors.

Fix your initial claim.

#1) You can't have them be designed so that some do and some don't, seemingly at random. That's not design.

That's not true. Your statement presumes to know the intentions of the designer. Some species could actually be designed to have an abnormally large amount of offspring to "fail"

Let me rephrase your argument for you so that you can see what you sound like:

"I know the designer exists because only a designer could design things to look like there isn't a designer."

Does that REALLY sound rational to you? honestly?

No I think that burden of proof lays upon the one using the study with the "mutated bacteria" as evidence for natural evolution and a mechanism to demonstrate how life could have arrived.

Well, too bad for you that what you _think_ about it doesn't matter.

You are making a claim - that these mutations exist and are the result of a designer.

In order to positively prove that claim, you need to measure ALL the mutations in order to determine that your claim (that a Jewish Wizard is Magically controlling the mutations) has validity.

I don't have enough "faith" in the bacteria alone to accept the evolutionary hypothesis. But that's just me.

So, when asked to provide evidence in support of your claim, you tell us that you can't be bothered to, because you reject our evidence based on your beliefs.

Sigh. This is why no one takes your side of the debate seriously.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by Just being real, posted 10-13-2010 8:05 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2109 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 363 of 396 (587484)
10-19-2010 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 352 by Granny Magda
10-13-2010 8:24 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
You are the one who dragged origins of life into this. I was talking about evolution, not abiogenesis; they're two separate topics.

That is not a fair claim. The topic of "Creation" or of "Intelligent Design" is by their very nature an "origins" topic. So when one mentions evolution in a contrasting argument to the two, one automatically assumes they are referring to evolution as it relates to abiogenesis. That is to say, the term for evolution popularized in the media which encompasses not only small changes in the population of a biological organism over time, but also the theory of how the first cell formed, and that all life today can be trace back to one universal common ancestor.

To claim that I am the one who brought up origins is a very gross distortion of the truth. The very name of the entire web site implies that "origins" will be the underlying topic of discussion. Therefore when an evolutionist, in a debate on intelligent design (brings up Lenski's bacteria studies), one must assume that they are at the very least implying that this is evidence that universal common decent is plausible.

If that be the case, then I again assert without hesitation, that the burden of proof falls directly upon the one using the studies in this manor.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by Granny Magda, posted 10-13-2010 8:24 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by hooah212002, posted 10-19-2010 11:04 AM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 369 by Granny Magda, posted 10-19-2010 11:37 AM Just being real has responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2109 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 364 of 396 (587485)
10-19-2010 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by hooah212002
10-13-2010 8:46 AM


No one gives a f**k what your defenition for specificity is. You coined a term: "apc". DEFINE THAT. Unless you are giving up on it?.

I see that you have dispensed with the subtleties and displayed your true colors. I am sure all of your friends are charmed by your flavored words, but they hardly are of any use in a discussion among gentlemen.

Just to be clear for you my linguistically challenged friend, apc and csi are for the most part the exact same concepts. With the exception that Dembski tends to promote something about irreducible bological machines under the umbrella of his csi. An argument I don't necessarily hold to. I find that using apc helps to avoid any confusion with people just aching to scratch that itch. Just look how fast you through up his name at the mere notion of similarity.

I defined for you the concept, I broke down each word used in the term defining them, and I placed the term in the context of examples. If you still are having trouble getting it... I am at a loss as to how else to communicate it to you. But personally I suspect the trouble is not in my communication skills.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by hooah212002, posted 10-13-2010 8:46 AM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by hooah212002, posted 10-19-2010 8:52 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2109 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 365 of 396 (587486)
10-19-2010 3:12 AM
Reply to: Message 358 by Coragyps
10-13-2010 11:24 AM


To repeat myself yet again: JBR, is this ground "designed?".

No. The patterns are the result of natural laws of physics at work in weather patterns. They are no different than the patterns observed in crystals. Interesting, complex, but not particularized (specific).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by Coragyps, posted 10-13-2010 11:24 AM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by Panda, posted 10-19-2010 7:58 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 372 by Taq, posted 10-19-2010 2:28 PM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 376 by Coragyps, posted 10-19-2010 3:37 PM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1886 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 366 of 396 (587504)
10-19-2010 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 365 by Just being real
10-19-2010 3:12 AM


Just being real writes:

No. The patterns are the result of natural laws of physics at work in weather patterns. They are no different than the patterns observed in crystals. Interesting, complex, but not particularized (specific).


How do you know that those patterns aren't particularized?
What did you measure?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Just being real, posted 10-19-2010 3:12 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by Just being real, posted 10-19-2010 3:17 PM Panda has responded

hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 367 of 396 (587513)
10-19-2010 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 364 by Just being real
10-19-2010 3:12 AM


I defined for you the concept, I broke down each word used in the term defining them, and I placed the term in the context of examples. If you still are having trouble getting it... I am at a loss as to how else to communicate it to you. But personally I suspect the trouble is not in my communication skills.

Sure, you defined the individual terms, but your examples don't follow. The way you are using the words all together don't work the way you want it to. Furthermore, you haven't defined it in such a way as to have anything more than word salad. You haven't given us a way to tell what IS or IS NOT "apc".

Just to be clear for you my linguistically challenged friend,

I am seriously amused when you bible thumping faggots get sand in your pussies over a few words. Grow up. Now, instead of shedding tears over my particular usage of words, provide a working definition for your hokey ass term (you will notice I am not the only member who has requested this).


"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Just being real, posted 10-19-2010 3:12 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 368 of 396 (587527)
10-19-2010 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 363 by Just being real
10-19-2010 3:12 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
So when one mentions evolution in a contrasting argument to the two, one automatically assumes they are referring to evolution as it relates to abiogenesis.

You seem to have that backwards. Evolution is not a rebuttal to creationism. Creationism attempts to rebut evolution. You folks are the only ones who press on saying that "evolution HAS to involve abiogenesis". That is YOUR assumption. You will notice this in the thread The evidence for design and a designer. The ID/creation crowd continue to bring up evolution as if saying "if I can prove one aspect of evolution wrong, ID/creationism is right". You know this is the case.

That is to say, the term for evolution popularized in the media ......

Sorry to burst your bubble, but even if the media did this, the media is not the arbiter of the facts of evolution. Scientists don't judge their findings off of what the media says. The media often times gets shit wrong and misconstrues data so that laypeople don't fully grasp the concept at hand. If you could find me an article that says "evolution is only possible with abiogenesis", that would be great.

...which encompasses not only small changes in the population of a biological organism over time, but also the theory of how the first cell formed, and that all life today can be trace back to one universal common ancestor

You are right on two of those counts. Evolution says diddly about how the first cell formed. It only deals with what happened AFTER life already existed.

To claim that I am the one who brought up origins is a very gross distortion of the truth. The very name of the entire web site implies that "origins" will be the underlying topic of discussion.

Wrong again. "EvC" is short for "Evolution vs. Creation" in that, we are here to debate the facts between the two sides.

Therefore when an evolutionist, in a debate on intelligent design (brings up Lenski's bacteria studies), one must assume that they are at the very least implying that this is evidence that universal common decent is plausible.

What does common descent have to do with the origin of life?


"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Just being real, posted 10-19-2010 3:12 AM Just being real has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by Wounded King, posted 10-19-2010 11:46 AM hooah212002 has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 64 days)
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 369 of 396 (587537)
10-19-2010 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 363 by Just being real
10-19-2010 3:12 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
HI JBR,

That is not a fair claim. The topic of "Creation" or of "Intelligent Design" is by their very nature an "origins" topic.

No, not as you were applying it. I cited Lenski, you challenged my conclusions. Lenski did not create E. coli. There was already E. coli in existence, Lenski simply observed it evolving new traits.

We are talking about the origins of those specific traits, not the origins of life itself.

So when one mentions evolution in a contrasting argument to the two, one automatically assumes they are referring to evolution as it relates to abiogenesis.

Why? I did not mention abiogenesis, I mentioned Lenski's E.coli experiments, which do not address origin of life. They address the origin of a specific trait; citrate metabolism.

If, when I talk about the origin of a specific trait in an existing organism, you assume that I am talking about abiogenesis, I have to wonder if we are speaking the same language.

That is to say, the term for evolution popularized in the media which encompasses not only small changes in the population of a biological organism over time, but also the theory of how the first cell formed, and that all life today can be trace back to one universal common ancestor.

The media? Screw the media. I'm not talking about the piss-poor representations of the ToE expounded in the popular press. I'm talking about the actual ToE, as defined, not by humanities-educated media know-nothings, but by actual biologists.

Who do you think has a better grasp on the terminology? Journalists? Or biologists?

I'm talking about the ongoing process of evolution, in the present day. The ability of E. coli to evolve new traits demonstrates the reality of evolution and its ability to originate new features.

To claim that I am the one who brought up origins is a very gross distortion of the truth. The very name of the entire web site implies that "origins" will be the underlying topic of discussion.

Nonsense. Not every discussion here is about abiogenesis, quite obviously. The site is called "Evolution vs Creation", not "Abiogenesis vs Creation". There is room here for discussions of both abiogenesis and evolution.

The only imaginable reason to discuss Lenski is that his experiments demonstrate the ongoing process of new traits evolving. You seem to doubt this. I fail to see why. That you doubt that naturalistic abiogenesis could occur is completely irrelevant to this. Let me be clear. We can consider multiple first origin scenarios;

1) Naturalistic Abiogenesis. After which life continues to evolve, develop new traits and diversify.

2) Divine Fiat Creation. After which life continues to evolve, develop new traits and diversify.

3) Creation by Unidentified Designer. After which life continues to evolve, develop new traits and diversify.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Any of those origins could be true without it affecting Lenski's data at all. In all of those scenarios, evolution is capable of originating novel biology.

Therefore when an evolutionist, in a debate on intelligent design (brings up Lenski's bacteria studies), one must assume that they are at the very least implying that this is evidence that universal common decent is plausible.

Well it is, if only indirectly, but that wasn't what I was getting at (nor need universal common ancestry be incompatible with divine creation; UCA and naturalistic abiogenesis are very far from being the same thing). I was pointing out to you that it has been clearly demonstrated that life itself is capable of originating novel traits, completely unguided and unsupervised. That observation totally undermines your claim that a designer is necessary for new traits to emerge.

Maybe I misunderstood you. Do you accept that already existing organisms can evolve new traits? Do you insist that a designer is needed for a new functional trait to emerge? Or are you merely claiming that a designer is needed for life itself to emerge?

I have to say that the idea of a designer jump-starting the first origin of life is considerably more plausible than the idea of a magic designer sneaking in during the night and tinkering with the DNA of existing organisms.

If that be the case, then I again assert without hesitation, that the burden of proof falls directly upon the one using the studies in this manor.

Well that would not be me, because that was never my point.

I notice incidentally, that you have not expanded upon what you meant by "directed" evolution. Are you planning on clarifying this? You do realise that the term "directed" does not, in this context, mean what you would like it to mean?

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Just being real, posted 10-19-2010 3:12 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by Just being real, posted 10-19-2010 3:17 PM Granny Magda has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2268 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 370 of 396 (587540)
10-19-2010 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 368 by hooah212002
10-19-2010 11:04 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
You are right on two of those counts. Evolution says diddly about how the first cell formed. It only deals with what happened AFTER life already existed.

Your both right and wrong here. You are right that evolution only applies to things that satisfy certain criteria of imperfect replication and heritability of traits, which may be termed 'life'. You are, I think, wrong to suggest that 'life' necessarily arose with the event of the first cellular lifeforms.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by hooah212002, posted 10-19-2010 11:04 AM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by hooah212002, posted 10-19-2010 11:49 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 371 of 396 (587542)
10-19-2010 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 370 by Wounded King
10-19-2010 11:46 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Thank you for pointing that out. However, I was not trying to imply that life arose with the first cell. I suppose my word usage could have been more clear.

{abe}
Looking back at my comment, I can see just how the confusion arose and it is due to the fact that I SUCK at writing. I never segue and often just throw two thoughts out right after one another.

Edited by hooah212002, : attempted humility?


"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by Wounded King, posted 10-19-2010 11:46 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7935
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 372 of 396 (587571)
10-19-2010 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by Just being real
10-19-2010 3:12 AM


No. The patterns are the result of natural laws of physics at work in weather patterns. They are no different than the patterns observed in crystals. Interesting, complex, but not particularized (specific).

Why aren't they particularized?

Would a novel protein that arises from observed random mutations be considered particularized?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Just being real, posted 10-19-2010 3:12 AM Just being real has not yet responded

Just being real
Member (Idle past 2109 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 373 of 396 (587574)
10-19-2010 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 366 by Panda
10-19-2010 7:58 AM


How do you know that those patterns aren't particularized?

Because the information in the article on the phenomenon tells us that they are formed by a process of water collection, freeze, and thaw in a natural cyclic weather pattern. But suppose we were observers with no knowledge of the natural cycle? How would we determine if they were formed by apc or not? Recall that I defined specificity (aka particularization) as any event or object which exhibits a pattern that matches a foreknown pattern that was completely interdependent of the first.

That means that for an observer to tell if it is particularized, he must be able to recognize it from a completely independent experience. If he does not recognize it from a prior experience this does not of itself mean it is not particularized. It simply means the observer does not have enough data to make a determination. However if he does recognize it from a prior experience then he can say with good certainty that it is particularized.

Just looking at the circles we see a complex pattern, but we do not recognize the pattern as fulfilling any specific purpose. Therefore we would not be able to make a determination. Neither would my five year old. However if we panned out to a wide scale shot and saw that the circles form the pores in a colossal drawing of Sponge Bob Square pants, then that would change. That would be because he would then recognize it from a previous experience.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by Panda, posted 10-19-2010 7:58 AM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by Panda, posted 10-19-2010 3:29 PM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 377 by ringo, posted 10-19-2010 5:54 PM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 378 by Taq, posted 10-19-2010 6:13 PM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 2109 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 374 of 396 (587575)
10-19-2010 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by Granny Magda
10-19-2010 11:37 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
No, not as you were applying it. I cited Lenski, you challenged my conclusions. Lenski did not create E. coli. There was already E. coli in existence, Lenski simply observed it evolving new traits. We are talking about the origins of those specific traits, not the origins of life itself.

Lets look at how the conversation went. It started with hooradmouth claiming that brainless tobacco plants displayed intelligence by adjusting their flowering times to twort catipllar attacks. (See post 270) And thereby threw a wrench in my whole apc concept. To which I pointed out that the changes did not take place within the same generation, but through the natural selection process of choosing alleles that probably already existed in the population but were just not dominant. (See post 278)

My comment was that creationists argue that these alleles were likely designed into the species for just such a purpose, from creation (their origins). To that you commented:

We know that alleles are based on DNA sequences. We know that DNA mutates. We know that mutations in the DNA affect changes in these alleles. We know that these changes include functional changes that allow the organism to independently develop new survival advantages. What more do we need to know here? We basically know that new alleles can be derived simply through the regular process of evolution.

You were obviously referring to Lenski's studies here because that was what you brought up when you were challenged. And you are also clearly using them as evidence to suggest that evolution is the explanation for the "origins" of these alleles. So again, the burden of proof falls directly upon the one using the studies in this manor.

That means it would be on the shoulders of the person using this as "evidence," to prove that the mutations did not occur at a rate that was too high for random mutations to produce.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Granny Magda, posted 10-19-2010 11:37 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by Granny Magda, posted 10-19-2010 9:56 PM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 380 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-19-2010 10:53 PM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 381 by Nuggin, posted 10-20-2010 2:30 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1886 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 375 of 396 (587577)
10-19-2010 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by Just being real
10-19-2010 3:17 PM


Just being real writes:

However if he does recognize it from a prior experience then he can say with good certainty that it is particularized.


How did he know during that prior experience that it was (or was not) particularized?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by Just being real, posted 10-19-2010 3:17 PM Just being real has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
222324
25
2627Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019