Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Creationist Shortage

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist Shortage
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 151 of 415 (662445)
05-15-2012 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by shadow71
05-15-2012 9:06 PM


Re: CRISPRs redux
Hi Shadow,
I didn't say Shapiro had no converts. I said he had few converts. What percentage of the community of biologists do you think accept Shapiro's views? 1%? 2%? 3%? How high do you think the percentage should be before it could be considered a consensus? 50%? 60%? 70%?
If you're going to weigh opinions instead of evidence, then the weight of opinion is vastly against Shapiro.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by shadow71, posted 05-15-2012 9:06 PM shadow71 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by shadow71, posted 05-17-2012 6:54 PM Percy has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(2)
Message 152 of 415 (662463)
05-15-2012 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by shadow71
05-15-2012 9:02 PM


Re: CRISPRs redux
shadow71 writes:
I am of the opinion that he is a an evolutionist whose theory is one of intelligent, organized response to nature and the enviroment. He is not one who agrees with Darwin's or the MS's position that all changes, ie. mutations, et. al are random w/o reagard to fitness.
That's about what Shapiro says. The intelligence he is talking about is in the cell. However, he does not clearly define intelligence, and most people find the claim of intelligence a bit implausible. He is probably using intelligence to refer to what most biologists describe as teleonomy.
On the mutation part, he does say that mutations are not random. However, when he gives details, he does say that you don't only see mutations that will be useful. So he isn't actually disagreeing with other biologists on mutations, except that he is using his own non-standard terminology.
On Darwinism, he does not think that natural selection is a satisfactory explanation. I don't think he is actually claiming to see something that other biologists don't see. It's more a matter that he does not like that way of explaining.
I have not talked to Shapiro, so I'm not sure if I am getting him wrong. There's an interaction between biological populations and the environment. Darwinists describe this with language that, in effect, puts the environment in charge selecting what should survive. I think Shapiro wants to describe it with the biological population in charge, exploringthe environment to find ways to survive.
We often find that there are two ways of describing things. We can say that the dogs wags its tail, or we can say that the tail wags the dog. Both are describing the same thing, but changing what is considered in charge.
My take is that Shapiro would prefer a different explanation, but he isn't disagreeing about what happens in biological systems. That is, he wants to describe it as the biological population redesigning itself, rather than as the environment redesigning it.
shadow71 writes:
In re Larry Moran, I am of the opinon he has a secular naturalism bias.
That may be a correct assessment. However, most scientists try to keep their science secular.
The neo-Darwinian account is mechanistic, and I think that's what Shapiro doesn't like about it. However, scientists like mechanistic accounts, because those give a better guide to the researcher.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by shadow71, posted 05-15-2012 9:02 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


(1)
Message 153 of 415 (662491)
05-16-2012 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by GDR
05-15-2012 7:49 PM


Re: why there are no creationists here
I am not sure your point here GDR. Doesn't all of the fossil evidence support the notion of guided evolution every bit as much as it does Darwinian evolution? With perhaps the caveat that it in fact supports the notion of guided evolution EVEN MORE SO, since what we find in the fossil record is fits and starts of new life forms, rather than smooth transitions.
So if you are going to support your belief in Darwinian evolution, based simply on fossils, you might as well believe anything, intelligent design, Lamarkism, what have you. Fossils say nothing about the process, just the result.
Also I would just like to note with great enthusiasm, that isn't it great that we no longer have to have discussions on this board which relate to the topic; as evidenced by Percy and Nwr's diatribes on Shapiro, which clearly have nothing at all to do with the topic. I am so glad there is a new paradigm at EvC which allows free range thought with no interruption from Admin about staying on topic. Or maybe admin just hasn't noticed the off topic rants yet?
Wait, isn't Percy Admin?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by GDR, posted 05-15-2012 7:49 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2012 6:09 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 156 by GDR, posted 05-16-2012 9:50 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 161 by Taq, posted 05-17-2012 5:55 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 154 of 415 (662494)
05-16-2012 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Bolder-dash
05-16-2012 5:21 AM


Re: why there are no creationists here
I am not sure your point here GDR.
Clearly you don't, since nothing that follows in your post has anything to do with what GDR posted. Others merely ignore the topic of the thread, but you have gone one step beyond that and ignored its content.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-16-2012 5:21 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(5)
Message 155 of 415 (662495)
05-16-2012 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Bolder-dash
05-15-2012 6:57 PM


Re: why there are no creationists here
You know , I think you may have something there Taq. I now realize, the reason evolutionists don't want to fairly debate their theory is because they have no evidence. And what's their reaction when they are asked t give evidence-they say it's off topic or they ban the questioner. Or they whine and whine about having to have their theory questioned in schools, lest students find out that there is no evidence. They say, "Oh its not fair to ask us for evidence, evolution is slow. Its hard to see. Fossils disappear a lot. Its not easy finding evidence...Hey, there was a bacteria once that ate something, isn't that enough for you...we weren't there, we can't go back in time..wha. Oh look at all those mean creationists who want to discuss the failure of our theory to provide real evidence in schools, whaaa whaa!" It's really quite immature.
I believe you have really stumbled onto something. Its the same reason why they censor wikipedia, why the National Academy of Sciences has a policy not to debate the subject, why PZ Meyers is afraid to debate, why Richard Dawkins is afraid to debate. Why Percy cuts off all questioning from creationists. Because they have nothing. They hide from the intellectual bankruptcy of their theory, by bullying away any objections. It all makes sense now, thank you Taq.
To someone unused to creationism, this collection of lies would seem remarkable in its mendacity. But for those of us who are used to it, the novelty has worn off.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-15-2012 6:57 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(5)
Message 156 of 415 (662568)
05-16-2012 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Bolder-dash
05-16-2012 5:21 AM


Re: why there are no creationists here
Bolder-dash writes:
I am not sure your point here GDR. Doesn't all of the fossil evidence support the notion of guided evolution every bit as much as it does Darwinian evolution?
I had understood you to be rejecting evolutionary belief altogether so if I misunderstood you I apologise.
IMHO, having no knowledge of biology, we would be unable to tell how evolution evolved, or how it began in the first place. As a theist I'm happy with the idea that the design might have been complete at its inception or that God tweaked it along the way. From the atheistic point of view evolution itself doesn't appear to require any outside influence. We can understand evolution as the handiwork of an intelligent first cause or we can see it as the result of completely natural causes.
Bolder-dash writes:
So if you are going to support your belief in Darwinian evolution, based simply on fossils, you might as well believe anything, intelligent design, Lamarkism, what have you. Fossils say nothing about the process, just the result.
I agree.
Bolder-dash writes:
Also I would just like to note with great enthusiasm, that isn't it great that we no longer have to have discussions on this board which relate to the topic; as evidenced by Percy and Nwr's diatribes on Shapiro, which clearly have nothing at all to do with the topic. I am so glad there is a new paradigm at EvC which allows free range thought with no interruption from Admin about staying on topic. Or maybe admin just hasn't noticed the off topic rants yet?
If you notice, this thread is in the coffee house which allows for that sort of thing. Frankly, Percy puts in considerable time, effort and probably money into keeping this forum going, and I for one am grateful. Even if we were in another thread it seems to me that if anybody should be cut some slack it would be Percy.
We are his guests here, and in light of that I suggest that we should treat our host graciously.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-16-2012 5:21 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 157 of 415 (662570)
05-17-2012 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Dr Adequate
05-05-2012 3:27 AM


(Note that when I mention Buzsaw and Dawn in the same sentence, this is not to say that I put them in the same class: I like Buzsaw personally, as a man, whereas the most sympathetic feeling I can muster for DB is a sort of horrified pity.)
From what the scriptures teach about people like yourself DA, your comments concerning me are like a badge of honor. Keep up the good work and compliments headed in my direction
Note, that while he, DA implies he likes Buzsaw, as a person or a man, you can see the dishonesty and lies even in such a comment. Before the above empty comment concerning Buz, you would spend much time pointlessly trying to find any comments of a positive nature twords Buz from DA
But to make himself seem somewhat respectful and accomodating, his dishonestly and lack of any real character shine through like a used car salesman, trying to make you believe he is actually interested in you
I suppose lying is also a part of the Secular fundamentalist tactics and approach
BTW, lets see some of the other complimentary comments about Buz. This should be no problem for you to produce, correct?
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-05-2012 3:27 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Coyote, posted 05-17-2012 1:23 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 158 of 415 (662571)
05-17-2012 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Dawn Bertot
05-17-2012 12:55 AM


Buz and Dawn
Dawn, you lack the charm Buz has. I kind of like him as well. You, not so much.
I don't agree with either of you in our debates, but if you notice Buz is one of the few creationists anywhere who can string a bunch of words together into a sentence. And he has quite a lot of patience.
I think I'd rather have a beer with Buz than you, although he might prefer tea instead.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-17-2012 12:55 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-17-2012 8:29 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 159 of 415 (662575)
05-17-2012 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Coyote
05-17-2012 1:23 AM


Re: Buz and Dawn
Dawn, you lack the charm Buz has. I kind of like him as well. You, not so much.
I don't agree with either of you in our debates, but if you notice Buz is one of the few creationists anywhere who can string a bunch of words together into a sentence. And he has quite a lot of patience.
I think I'd rather have a beer with Buz than you, although he might prefer tea instead.
And of course this is my point. In an attempt to appear legitimate or make yourself sound consiliatory, its necessary to pitt one against the other. When in fact there would not be a nice comment anywhere to be found concerning Buz, if you did not need to use it like a cheap suit a used car salesman wears.
Actually I think I have greater respect for a used car salesman, than yourself and DA, because he might actually have the backbone to reveal himself and might have the fortitude to actually meet in formal publice debate. You dont
Forgetting for the moment religion and creationism, I pay him the respect like I do ICant, for thier years and senior status to myself. You do neither.
I sorry I have to say it, perhaps you will forgive me, of course I dont know with double-minded persons like youself, You lie when you say you like him
Quit lying and continue with your usual insults. Atleast then you dont make either of us hurl our latest meal.
My point is simple. If your comments concerning Buz were not being used like a weapon and there was evidence in another place that you believed such things concerning him, that atleast would be some middle ground for a starting place, for recieving you as legitimate in your otherwise empty comments
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Coyote, posted 05-17-2012 1:23 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 160 of 415 (662654)
05-17-2012 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Bolder-dash
05-15-2012 6:57 PM


Re: why there are no creationists here
You know , I think you may have something there Taq. I now realize, the reason evolutionists don't want to fairly debate their theory is because they have no evidence.
Fine then. Challenge accepted. I am hereby challenging you to a one on one debate where I will offer evidence in support of evolution, and you will in turn offer evidence of creationism. Are you up for this or not?
And what's their reaction when they are asked t give evidence
Notice how you have already deflected attention away from the lack of evidence for creationism. How predictable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-15-2012 6:57 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 161 of 415 (662655)
05-17-2012 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Bolder-dash
05-16-2012 5:21 AM


Re: why there are no creationists here
Doesn't all of the fossil evidence support the notion of guided evolution every bit as much as it does Darwinian evolution? With perhaps the caveat that it in fact supports the notion of guided evolution EVEN MORE SO, since what we find in the fossil record is fits and starts of new life forms, rather than smooth transitions.
It would be great if you would start a thread explaining how fits and starts in the very incomplete fossil record evidences a supernatural natural deity changing DNA.
Fossils say nothing about the process, just the result.
If you start a thread on this subject or include it in our 1-on-1 debate I will show that you are very wrong about this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Bolder-dash, posted 05-16-2012 5:21 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 2933 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 162 of 415 (662671)
05-17-2012 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Percy
05-15-2012 9:45 PM


Re: CRISPRs redux
Percy writes:
If you're going to weigh opinions instead of evidence, then the weight of opinion is vastly against Shapiro.
I don't disagree with your comment. However you very rarely see Shapiro disparaged for his science. His opinions and choice of words seems to upset most critics.
Perhaps he is ahead of his time.
I guess the future will hold the answer to whether he is correct or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Percy, posted 05-15-2012 9:45 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by PaulK, posted 05-18-2012 1:42 AM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 164 by Percy, posted 05-18-2012 6:53 AM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 165 by Granny Magda, posted 05-18-2012 7:23 AM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 167 by Taq, posted 05-18-2012 3:45 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 163 of 415 (662693)
05-18-2012 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by shadow71
05-17-2012 6:54 PM


Re: CRISPRs redux
quote:
I don't disagree with your comment. However you very rarely see Shapiro disparaged for his science. His opinions and choice of words seems to upset most critics.
My observation is that you don't agree with his science. Instead you take his misleadingly-phrased opinions and allow yourself to be thoroughly mislead. Which makes the critics' opinions very much on-target.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by shadow71, posted 05-17-2012 6:54 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 164 of 415 (662708)
05-18-2012 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by shadow71
05-17-2012 6:54 PM


Re: CRISPRs redux
What he said...
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by shadow71, posted 05-17-2012 6:54 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 165 of 415 (662710)
05-18-2012 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by shadow71
05-17-2012 6:54 PM


Re: CRISPRs redux
However you very rarely see Shapiro disparaged for his science. His opinions and choice of words seems to upset most critics.
Well yes. That's because his "opinions and choice of words" are precisely the point at which he abandons the science and wanders off into a fantasy land.
Worse, that's the bit you like, not the science, because you're not interested in that, but the unjusitifed hyperbole. After all, if Shapiro didn't use silly language like "intelligence", he would be of no use to you.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by shadow71, posted 05-17-2012 6:54 PM shadow71 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024