Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance.
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 21 of 301 (366398)
11-27-2006 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Confidence
11-27-2006 3:08 PM


Chance and possibilities.
You must admit that chance is the beginning of evolution.
Generally speaking 'life' is the beginning of evolution - but then we need to define 'life' eh? More difficult than it seems at first. (see Definition of Life
On the other hand, what we need for evolution to work is a replication system involving copies that are variations on a theme, where the variations are passed on to the copies in the replication process and then new variations on those copied themes produced, copies where natural selection can operate in restricting which variations are available to the next generation based on those from the previous generation that best enable the survival or replication of the mechanism.
We could define life as any replication system where evolution is part of the process.
Crystals replicate but are not subject to natural selection in the way the copies are made and passed on.
Viruses replicate using materials outside the virus, but they are subject to evolution - they adapt and change over time due to mutation and natural selection.
The first replication systems may well not have qualified for 'life' by any current definitions, but still have provided a platform where natural selection operates.
So one way to define life would be any system where natural selection operates on variations within a population of self replicating mechanisms such that change over time occurs within the population that improves the chances of the self replicating mechanisms to survive or to self replicate.
This could be a single organic molecule -- we don't really know at this point, but evidence is pointing in that direction:
SELF-REPLICATION: Even peptides do it
By Stuart A. Kauffman
This article originally appeared in Nature 382 August 8, 1996.
Copyright 1996 by Nature.
available on-line
quote:
The authors show that a 32-amino-acid peptide, folded into an alpha-helix and having a structure based on a region of the yeast transcription factor GCN4, can autocatalyse its own synthesis by accelerating the amino-bond condensation of 15- and 17-amino-acid fragments in solution (see Fig. 1 on page 525).
The RNA World
by Brig Klyce
on-line article
quote:
RNA has the ability to act as both genes and enzymes. This property could offer a way around the "chicken-and-egg" problem. (Genes require enzymes; enzymes require genes.) Furthermore, RNA can be transcribed into DNA, in reverse of the normal process of transcription. These facts are reasons to consider that the RNA world could be the original pathway to cells.
RNA-catalysed RNA polymerization using nucleoside triphosphates.
By Ekland EH, Bartel DP.
Nature. 1996 Sep 12;383(6596):192. - PubMed Abstract
quote:
The hypothesis that certain RNA molecules may be able to catalyse RNA replication is central to current theories of the early evolution of life. In support of this idea, we describe here an RNA that synthesizes RNA using the same reaction as that employed by protein enzymes that catalyse RNA polymerization. In the presence of the appropriate template RNA and nucleoside triphosphates, the ribozyme extends an RNA primer by successive addition of up to six mononucleotides.
RNA-catalyzed RNA polymerization: accurate and general RNA-templated primer extension.
By Johnston WK, Unrau PJ, Lawrence MS, Glasner ME, Bartel DP.
Science. 2001 May 18;292(5520):1278. - PubMed Abstract
quote:
The RNA world hypothesis regarding the early evolution of life relies on the premise that some RNA sequences can catalyze RNA replication. In support of this conjecture, we describe here an RNA molecule that catalyzes the type of polymerization needed for RNA replication. The ribozyme uses nucleoside triphosphates and the coding information of an RNA template to extend an RNA primer by the successive addition of up to 14 nucleotides-more than a complete turn of an RNA helix. Its polymerization activity is general in terms of the sequence and the length of the primer and template RNAs, provided that the 3' terminus of the primer pairs with the template. Its polymerization is also quite accurate: when primers extended by 11 nucleotides were cloned and sequenced, 1088 of 1100 sequenced nucleotides matched the template.
There is more, but essentially what we increasingly see is that cellular life doesn't need to exist for the processes of evolution (variation in copies and selection of those copies that are more 'fit' to survive or replicate) to operate on the replication of molecular systems.
So when we talk about for formation of life by natural means (eg -- abiogenesis), we are talking about the chemical formation of these replicating molecules, and what kinds of chemical processes can cause these molecules to form and what kinds of building blocks did these chemical processes have available to work with.
Chemical processes are not entirely random - molecules only form in certain ways, bonds can only form under certain conditions.
We also know that certain prebiotic and organic chemicals were readily available.
Building Blocks of Life
by RAZD on EvC Forum
RAZD - Building Blocks of Life
quote:
In the farthest depths of the universe polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) molecules have been found by the Spitzer Space Telescope, 10 billion light-years away (4 Hill 2005). Other deep space organic compounds that have already been found are the 7-atom vinyl alcohol (5 anon 2001), the 8-atom molecule propenal and the 10-atom molecule propanal (2 anon 2004),
In the immediate stellar neighborhood we have data from our gas giants and their moons. The IRIS-Voyager infrared spectrometer detected prebiotic molecules on Titan as well as complex organic molecules on Jupiter and Saturn. The Cassini satellite found an organic ''factory'' of hydrocarbons in the upper atmosphere of Titan (7 Martinez 2005). Carbonaceous material has also been observed in the immediate surroundings of Comet Halley's nucleus, implying these materials are also readily available in the OORT cloud surrounding the planets (8 Encrenaz 1986). These findings, tells us that such prebiotics are formed in an interstellar medium by non-living procedures. Furthermore, even if they are not uniformly available in the early formation of the system, they are certainly available for transport from such locations where they are available to any planets in the stellar system.
Moving farther in, we have detected a host of prebiotics on meteorites. Mono- and dicarboxylic acids, dicarboximides, pyridine carboxylic acids, a sulfonic acid, and both aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons (9 Pizzarello et al 2001) have been found. In addition, hollow, bubble-like hydrocarbon globules, similar to early membraneous formations (10 Watson 2002), and ''polyols,'' components of the nucleic acids RNA and DNA, constituents of cell membranes and cellular energy sources (11 Koczor 2001 & 12 Cooper et al 2001) have been detected in material from meteorites as well.
We do not need to consider how these molecules could have formed or what kind of chance is necessary for them to form: they were available.
Thus, while we may need "chance" to make the proper connections - the actual chemical bonds between available prebiotic molecular building blocks to form a replicating molecule - the readily available material, the basic chemical behavior of molecules that only bond in a certain number of ways (not endless) and the minimum basic replication requirements needed, all mean that the possibilities could well have been such that it was more just a matter of time rather than a matter of "impossible" odds.
We may need "chance" to toss a coin and get a heads instead of a tails, but no one will argue that no matter how long you keep tossing the coin that you will never get a heads result.
And once a replication system has started producing more replicating molecules it is no longer a matter of chance, but a faits accomplis.
At this point the best we can say from a scientific point of view is that we don't know.
Some people may choose to conclude that their preferred god is responsible, but that is -- as all faith truly is -- the leap of faith.
So whether Newton was right or not to assume a designer is open to debate. It could be the same as assuming that a designer is responsible for all the patterns seen in a kaleidoscope, when it is as much a matter of the point of view of the observer whether a pattern truly exists or not:
One person only looking through the eyehole sees marvelous patterns.
Another person looks at the back and sees jumbled block of random colored chips, opens the kaleidoscope and finds mirrors that cause the appearance of patterns.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Confidence, posted 11-27-2006 3:08 PM Confidence has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 64 of 301 (368575)
12-08-2006 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Hyroglyphx
12-08-2006 2:44 PM


My take on ID vs Deism
If you look at the Deist position, this about all that God did. According to some of them, God, (as abstract a concept as any) set the ball in motion and just sort of observes for the rest of eternity. If this is this case, I wonder how anyone could come to believe that God exists.
Your inability to understand is not my problem.
At least the main body of theism is based off an informed faith. But this deist belief seems to be supported by, literally, nothing-- except perhaps the notion that it is counterintuitive to suppose that everything comes from absolute nothingness.
The main body of theism is based on someone's interpretation of someone's interpretation of someone's interpretation of someone's interpretation of someone's interpretation of someone's interpretation of someone's interpretation of someone's interpretation of someone's interpretation of someone's interpretation of someone's interpretation of someone's interpretation of someone's interpretation of someone's interpretation of someone's interpretation of someone's interpretation of someone's interpretation of someone's interpretation of someone's original belief, and that first person was likely some kind of a deist.
Take ID to it's logical conclusion and you have Deism, nothing more, and nothing less. To think otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-08-2006 2:44 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by anglagard, posted 12-08-2006 9:53 PM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 68 of 301 (368644)
12-09-2006 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by John 10:10
12-09-2006 9:43 AM


You proved the topic point, thanks
But when evolutionists look at the incredible design and complexity of macro and micro space, ...
... they see the wonders of natural design, but are also not blind to the many little things that do not fit a design model. They know the difference between appearance of design and known design. The less you know about things the easier it is to overlook the little details and bathe in the wonder of the world, like a child wonders at the magical abilities of their parents.
Your argument is pure incredulity and ignorance and nothing more. In this you prove the point of this topic.
Personally I think that both sides of the design controversy need to be given equal attention.
Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...
I also think that theists that claim to be IDists are fooling themselves or hypocrites or just have not thought it through to the logical conclusion, and when it comes to a choice on whether to follow the design concept to it's fullest conclusion in spite of whether or not it contradicts their theist beliefs, they will hold on to their theist beliefs and discard the IDology.
To embrace ID fully takes a willingness to embrace the concept that belief may be wrong.
I have yet to see a theist take that step.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by John 10:10, posted 12-09-2006 9:43 AM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by John 10:10, posted 12-09-2006 5:51 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 71 of 301 (368722)
12-09-2006 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by John 10:10
12-09-2006 5:51 PM


Re: You proved the topic point, thanks
Did you say something new? No. You just repeated your argument from ignorance and incredulity. That is not debating in good faith.
And then you call my argument ignorance, silly, and hypocritical.
I said your argument was based on ignorance and incredulity.
I said that in my opinion theists that claim to embrace ID are generally hypocritical when push comes to shove, and they have to choose whether to follow where ID goes or where their faith goes, they usually choose faith and NOT ID.
I also said that that when it comes to looking at design rationally that the Silly Design Institute fits reality better than the neo-paleyism of so called "intelligent" design. And I gave you a link to investigate that relationship to silliness. One you appear not to even have read to see what I was talking about and the evidence for it.
Your statement is a mischaracterisation of what I said.
So you have
(1) repeated your argument based on ignorance and incredulity with no additional information and
(2) misrepresented my position
And then you disparage my post?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by John 10:10, posted 12-09-2006 5:51 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by John 10:10, posted 12-10-2006 12:32 PM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 75 of 301 (368737)
12-09-2006 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Hyroglyphx
12-09-2006 5:37 PM


ID focuses on misrepresentations
You know, I really don't want anyone to settle on it. I would much rather that people be given a host of options. I just want ID to have a platform. That's all. If people think its bunk, then that's up to them.
Options like delusions on a geocentric earth? Do you think school should be so jammed with every concept imaginable that one can't learn anything - there just isn't time enough?
I have no way of unmasking who or what the Designer is. For all we know, Gaia could be the Designer. Direct or Indirect Panspermia could be the delivery method for how life was first seeded on earth. But simply recognizing that life has all the markings of intent, who are we to try and dismiss by inventing clever reasons why it cannot be so.
So it could be the Deist god eh? The belief you don't understand? Don't you see the contradiction in your position here?
In order to fully embrace ID you HAVE to be able to accept that beliefs can be wrong. You have not done that.
Both options should be allowed to be examined.
What both?
Do you mean the option to examine science and the option to examine non-sense?
Or do you mean that both options of "design controversy" should be give equal consideration so that people can make up their own minds, based on the education that they lack because those classes were full of non-sense?
Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...
We can evaluate which has more relevance to the evidence we see around us eh?
Or is "both" really a false dichotomy based on the gratuitous politization of creationism into a false pseudo-non-theology package for the sole purpose of inflicting delusion on school classes?
A half formed concept that fails to follow it's own concept to the logical conclusion but only pulls up failed old creationist PRATTS.
Why do you want to teach delusions in school?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-09-2006 5:37 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-11-2006 9:22 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 83 of 301 (368843)
12-10-2006 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Chiroptera
12-10-2006 4:09 PM


The problem is that the IDers are unable to come up with a scientific test to indicate what is design and what is not.
And for some like John 10:10, repeating his mantra over and over (Message 67, Message 70, Message 79), every little thing is proof of their god's design ... there is nothing that is not designed ...
... which reduces the concept to a null value concept for discerning design from non-design, makes it useless for any kind of science investigations into how things work (it's all god-powered anyway eh?), and ends up with a concept that is intellectual vacuous.
Better to just keep to plain faith and leave "ID" out of it, imh(ysa)o.
At least with creationist faith you have an excuse for bad design (see end of angalards post, "point 107" in Message 84 ... gives me the creeps).
... the main reason people think they see design in nature is that they are being influenced by their a priori beliefs that their god has in fact designed the world around them.
And they've never taken the time to see if that belief holds up against the facts. They've never questioned whether they could be wrong ...
... and if you cannot question that, you are not doing science.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Chiroptera, posted 12-10-2006 4:09 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by John 10:10, posted 12-10-2006 4:59 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 86 of 301 (368872)
12-10-2006 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by John 10:10
12-10-2006 4:59 PM


lost bandwidth
... is that they do not want there to be a Creator who has possibly designed the world around them.
LOL. Do you know what a Deist is?
Yes there are people that do not feel the need to be coddled by a mythtaken view of the world, but are willing to look at it with both eyes open. That does not make their view of the world less fullfilling, but more.
This is but another pathetic attempt to use passive aggressive christian martyred one-up-man-ship guilt tripping reverse superiority, and it falls flat.
You are perfectly free to shut your mind up in a box and stare at padded walls (or navels if you wish), and call it faith, but I have no need to do so.
Why is it NOT ONE proponent of neo-paleyism ("intelligent" design) can discuss the evidence posted on Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy... and show how it can be considered "intelligent" instead of silly?
Your reasoning works just as well in reverse.
You have yet to construct a reason, let alone one in reverse.
Now you could, sometime soon, actually make an arguement (but I'm not counting it) ...
... So save the bandwidth until you have an argument eh?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by John 10:10, posted 12-10-2006 4:59 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by John 10:10, posted 12-10-2006 9:15 PM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 137 of 301 (369395)
12-12-2006 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Hyroglyphx
12-11-2006 9:22 PM


Re: ID focuses on misrepresentations
I think if there is a considerable amount of support for a topic, there should be a platform for at least discussing its possibilities.
Yes, it could be anything.
No, because there is literally nothing supporting the inference of the deist God. It has as much philosophical and scientific backbone as the microscopic elephant.
And you have just concurred that ID has "literally nothing supporting the inference" and "It has as much philosophical and scientific backbone as the microscopic elephant."
Which people have been pointing out to you.
Yes, I mean that both pro and con arguments against design should be allowed to be discussed, because design does not have to be theological in nature.
It just needs evidence - which you just said was non-existent - to be valid for science.
I don't see a third option.
You don't even have a second yet. You are comparing science with philosophy and saying "look, science doesn't do philosophy" and the only reason you have for it is your personal beliefs.
The options are science and non-sense: you want to teach non-sense about microscopic elephants being possible.
Here's a novel idea: Lets leave it open to discussion in school ...
You call that "novel"??? Thats the whole wedge issue.
I mean, there are quite a few competing theories concepts.
But there is only one scientific theory. The others are hypothesis based on wishfull thinking and a complete (as you noted) lack of evidence. Crude concepts.
Yes, I mean that both pro and con arguments against design should be allowed to be discussed, because design does not have to be theological in nature. I mean, there are quite a few competing theories.
But you haven't even engaged the problem with neo-paleyism design as exemplified by the Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy..., you need to look at both sides of the design contoversy: neo-paleyism vs silly design.
Take the human eye: it is a D-- design. Barely able to meet the needs of the organism when it is NOT failing, and it is frequently failing.
You have a blind spot and a bunch of "wiring" that gets in the way of vision, reducing it's ability to see, and sometime seeing things that are NOT there and sometimes NOT seeing things that ARE there ...
This is SILLY.
With an AVERAGE design failing sight would not occur. It does, so the current design is sub-average.
With a GOOD design there would be other {benefits\features\abilities} that would have arisen from methods to keep sight from failing.
Good design borrows from other designs to assemble a superior design. Thus for GOOD design of the eye, we would have the retina of an octopus or squid (facing the proper direction) and the additional focus mechanism of octopus (change focal length to the eye - they have a fixed lens compared to our changeable lens) to give ZOOM vision as well as overcome any small loss of vision as the lens hardens.
Because there CAN be a better design using CURRENT PARTS, the existing design is pedestrian, poorly thought out and frought with problems that could be easily overcome.
It is NOT intelligent.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to design a BETTER eye from AVAILABLE parts.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-11-2006 9:22 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 155 of 301 (369571)
12-13-2006 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Hyroglyphx
12-12-2006 6:26 PM


Re: Deep misgivings
What they can do, is show people that something of a Higher Cognizance is most parsimonious.
You are miss-using parsimony here. It is not just the simplest explanation, but the simplest explanation that explains all the facts.
The earth at the center of the universe is the simplest explanation for why we see everything else appear to orbit the earth, but it doesn't explain retrograde movements.
A heliocentric model does explain retrograde motion, but then there are motions in deep space that are not explained until you open to modern astronomy with our planet orbiting a sun in the arm of a galaxy that is itself travelling through space.
This explanation is much more complex than the geocentric model but it is the simplest one that explains all the facts.
The concept of an intelligent designer involved in the evolution of organisms on earth doesn't predict the guinea worm (Message 98) or even that whole classes of organisms would behave in this manner - rather it would predict the opposite.
Evolution does predict them. That is what makes it a useful scientific theory, and not pie in the sky pseudomythology involving miniature magic elephants.
The problem with the design concept is that there is insufficient design evidence in the universe to make a case for it in any {system\feature\function\ability}.
It may be "simple" but that doesn't make it more powerful, more useful OR more valid, it just makes it "simple" ... in several connotations of the word.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-12-2006 6:26 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 156 of 301 (369572)
12-13-2006 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by John 10:10
12-11-2006 5:25 PM


Creationism is NOT ID
...as being a prime example of living in a "fallen world" that is "not" how the Intelligent Designer designed the world...
As I've said before, when creationists attempt to use ID they only do so half-heartedly and they will always revert to their creationist roots when pushed to explain the contradictions inherent in the ID position.
This is a prime example.
ID cannot use this excuse, or it fails to carry it's precepts to their logical conclusions.
John 10.10 also invalidates his own argument:
Message 96
The basic principle of design works this way:
Purpose/Plan Preceeds Product.
I reflect on the Intelligent Designer's amazing creativeness to create such incredible cosmologies that mankind can use for good or for evil.
For now we have an unknown purpose or an evil purpose, some "plan" that cannot be to our knowing, and this makes the "product" totally unpredictable.
If you cannot discern a purpose and you cannot discern a plan then you cannot conclude design.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by John 10:10, posted 12-11-2006 5:25 PM John 10:10 has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 164 of 301 (369801)
12-14-2006 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by NosyNed
12-14-2006 1:45 PM


Re: Science done by IDists
Funny how those creationists keep popping out of the ID woodwork eh?
quote:
"The objective is to challenge the scientific community on naturalism." Weber is not a scientist but a retired professor of business and administration at the Presbyterian Whitworth College in Spokane, Washington. He heads the Spokane chapter of Reasonstobelieve.org, a Christian organisation that seeks to challenge Darwinism.
Color for emphasis to those who think ID is not creationism in a box.
FUNDED by the gullible.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by NosyNed, posted 12-14-2006 1:45 PM NosyNed has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 201 of 301 (371287)
12-20-2006 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by DivineBeginning
12-20-2006 7:07 PM


Re: improbability != intelligently design
As far as probabilities go ...
I point out, for the record, that DivineBegining claimed to be a math major and was challenged to find fault with the the old improbable probability problem in general and Message 35 in particular.
and could NOT do so: He has abandoned that thread entirely, given it up, and run-away from the thread and the challenge that it provided him.
Now he is asserting this same ignorant fallacious probabilities issue again.
It does not matter what the basis is\are for the calculations, they are based on assumptions and not facts. They are a mathematical assumption and cannot be used to invalidate reality: reality exists in spite of mathematical probabilities. Yucatan meteor case in point.
You are astronomically improbable but there are you are - amazing isn't.
This is post hoc ergo propter hoc and the argument from incredulity and nothing more -- logical fallacies.
The possibility of something - no matter how small is still more than zero, and the relative possibility compared to an impossibility is that number divided by zero: quite sufficient IIR(my math)C. Amazing it is not.
You are truly a pompous jerk!!
Didn't you talk down to someone about being a "foul-mouthed one" when you started?
As a point of information, any "evo" that makes a similar comment about another poster is usually suspended for 24 hours (or more) because this is a violation of forum rules\guidelines. This is an ad hominem attack on the messenger and not on the message. Creationists are cut some slack by the administration: I hope you enjoy being "privileged", but don't abuse it (it's so hard to play the matryred christian afterwards).
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : posthocergopropterhoc

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by DivineBeginning, posted 12-20-2006 7:07 PM DivineBeginning has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by DivineBeginning, posted 12-20-2006 10:30 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 216 of 301 (371457)
12-21-2006 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by DivineBeginning
12-20-2006 10:30 PM


learning
type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quote boxes are easy

(edited for quotes)
This is post hoc ergo propter hoc
Could you just use plain english here?
I could.
The question is whether you will learn something. It is a common logical fallacy, and anyone familiar with logic should know it. It is easy to google a term like this and get an answer, or go to wikipedia - either will get you good results.
That's what I do when I run across a term I don't know, and it has the benefit of not being misdirected by someone who doesn't really know what they are talking about.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by DivineBeginning, posted 12-20-2006 10:30 PM DivineBeginning has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by DivineBeginning, posted 12-21-2006 6:43 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 220 of 301 (371487)
12-21-2006 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by DivineBeginning
12-21-2006 6:43 PM


Re: learning
I am sorry about the attacks and my attitude toward all you guys. I have a lot to learn yet. I will never relinquish my faith in Jesus Christ to anyone or thing, but I will never quiet my thirst for learning more. I appreciate your patience with me. I know I've been pretty bad myself.
Many people here have been there. It is not a happy place. I hope you work through your faith, and see that faith is not the issue -- but falsehoods that people have told you, people that may be well meaning but ill-informed.
If you believe in creation (as many do) then you have to, at some level, believe that what is out here in the world and the universe - the reality of existence - is the final word on what creation was.
And not somebodies interpretation of any book or nook or crany.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by DivineBeginning, posted 12-21-2006 6:43 PM DivineBeginning has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 222 of 301 (371489)
12-21-2006 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by GDR
12-21-2006 7:46 PM


Re: Science done by IDists
Science of the gaps uses pure conjecture to postulate what science can't explain. It isn't science any more than religious faith is.
"Science of the Gaps" is filled by conjecture, hypothesis based on (a) current theory that explains each side of the gap (b) extrapolation of theory to cover the missing area. This makes a prediction that anything found that fits in this gap will also fit on the string line of the hypothesis between each side of the gap.
We see this in physics, we see it in biology. We see it in Tittaalik.
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic fossils mark move to land
quote:
In 1999, palaeontologists Professor Neil Shubin, from the University of Chicago, and Professor Edward Daeschler, from the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, set out to explore the Canadian Arctic in an attempt to find the "missing link" that would explain the transition from water to land.
After several years of searching with very little success, they hit the jackpot in 2004.
In this case they went looking for transitional fossils of a particular type in a specific sediment that was the right habitat and the right age for the transitional animal to have existed -- they filled the gap in knowledge with a proposed transitional animal and then went and found it.
That it was not entirely as expected is also par for the course eh? The fun in life is the surprises.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by GDR, posted 12-21-2006 7:46 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by GDR, posted 12-21-2006 8:57 PM RAZD has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024