Author Topic: What can we do?  (Read 12700 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #29 on: January 26, 2012, 06:20:36 PM »
Back to the OP. What can we do? Hassle the heck out of believers. The next time I encounter someone who thinks evolution is a bunch of bunk and backs up their case with the usual "where are the missing links" question or otherwise demonstrates ignorance, I will say something like "Well, I don't like Jesus because he didn't drive American cars. He drove those foreign pieces of crap!" When they look at me with big and questioning eyes, I will explain that if they are going to use misinformation as proof they are right, I can make up crap too and use it to stave off the religious.

Fair is fair. If they aren't going to take the time to understand what they are against, I have no reason to diss bible based arguments with anything less than equal levels of ignorance.
While I don't agree that hassling people is appropriate or necessary, I do not disagree that someone who willingly engages in a discussion/debate about these matters should do so with some level of understanding....theist and non-theist alike.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #30 on: January 26, 2012, 06:36:26 PM »

What deep trenches are you speaking of?


How about if I just point you here:

www.crev.info

There are countless examples.
Nah, if you tell me in your own words what examples you think I might find there, I may go check it out.
Don't get lazy and just post links. You can do better than that!

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7312
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #31 on: January 26, 2012, 06:43:34 PM »

You speak as though the ToE is this very straightforward, factually complete and  indisputable theory that only the ignorant do not subscribe to. That’s rather arrogant and presumptuous. If you were as learned as you portray yourself to be, you’d realize it is a complex theory with thousands of parts….many of which are still being studied and tested. I have studied, researched, and analyzed gobs of information and am still far from convinced the ToE provides an indisputable means of explaining how life evolved to its current state…..and I am far from alone. There are MANY people, including well educated people in the sciences who share my view.

You are trying to sell a bill of goods based on your “faith” that abiogenesis (or panspermia) occurred, that we all share a common ancestor, and that lizard-to-snake type speciation events occurred….and this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other problems with the ToE. When some of these deep trenches are filled with something of substance, then you may have reason to start leasing billboard space.

Why are you so concerned about this perceived ignorance anyway? If we’re all going to perish into nothingness, what difference does it make if we die ignorant of something like the ToE?

Wow.  I'm not really all that surprised to see an exact case for the OP happening in this very thread!  Lying for Jesus is a very popular pastime, and it's alive and well with this very worn out parroting of creationist nonsense. 

Seriously, this is unacceptable crap from a member who has been here this long, and never once provided a shred of evidence for creationism.  Can't do that, so spend every ounce of brain power parroting creationist lies as though they matter any more.  Science left that garbage behind long ago.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #32 on: January 26, 2012, 07:17:59 PM »
BS: I don't want to do your work for you, but I peeked at the first two examples on that website you tossed out a link to: Geesh! This is where you go for science? Give me a break!

News For the Birds: Interesting facts about birds from a number of sources like PhysOrg and Science Magazine. No peer reviewed lterature, but interesting, none the less.

These are supposedly fascinating science stories, but then "science is defiled by evolution-ease" (the archaeopterix story). Looks like the cherry pickers do the same thing with "science" that they do with scripture.

Geologist 750% Wrong In Death Valley:
Ha!
6000 vrs 800 years...750% wrong.....
...is far better than the creationist idea about the earth being 6,000 years old when it is 4.5 billion. My calculator won't even do a percentage difference that large! What is that 75,000,000% difference?
« Last Edit: January 26, 2012, 07:22:33 PM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6753
  • Darwins +817/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #33 on: January 26, 2012, 07:32:41 PM »
Also keep in mind that via science we know less than we could because so many steer away from science careers because of mind-numbing religious beliefs. Were more people enthralled and excited about science instead of afraid of it, we might have more medicines and more info about the universe and more ways to combat global warming.

But NOOOOOOO! God is great! Ignorance is bliss! Stupid is as stupid does, over and over and over.

Sad.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #34 on: January 27, 2012, 11:13:47 AM »
I have to ask BibleStudent and others who disagree to provide me with alternative explanations that both a) reasonably explain such things as naked mole rats and parasitic fungi in ants and eyelash mites as well as kitty cats and daisies and elephants, and b) provides a testable systemic method (other than the scientific one, I presume) to back up and verify the various claims being made.


INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Study it, research it, and learn it to the same extent that you have come to understand the ToE. To say that ID is incapable of offering an alternative explanation is blatantly dishonest. You don’t have to agree with it or accept it but, since the possibility of ID absolutely exists, outright dismissal of it as an alternative would suggest that you are the victim of presuppositions that have a stranglehold on you.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11196
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #35 on: January 27, 2012, 11:21:22 AM »
INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Study it, research it, and learn it to the same extent that you have come to understand the ToE. To say that ID is incapable of offering an alternative explanation is blatantly dishonest. You don’t have to agree with it or accept it but, since the possibility of ID absolutely exists, outright dismissal of it as an alternative would suggest that you are the victim of presuppositions that have a stranglehold on you.

SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Study it, research it, and learn it to the same extent that you have come to understand ID. To say that ID is capable of offering an alternative explanation is blatantly dishonest. You don't have to agree with the scientific method or accept it but, since it's the best method we have come up with to study the universe, outright dismissal of it would suggest that you are the victim of indoctrination that has a stranglehold on you.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #36 on: January 27, 2012, 11:26:56 AM »
BS:

Compare and contrast then shall we? You first.
ID: Irreducible complexity, added: specified complexity
Science: Emerging Complexity

ID: Design Inference
Evolution: Natural Selection
« Last Edit: January 27, 2012, 11:34:45 AM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline kaziglu bey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 772
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • There is no Big Brother in the sky.
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #37 on: January 27, 2012, 11:32:58 AM »
INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Study it, research it, and learn it to the same extent that you have come to understand the ToE. To say that ID is incapable of offering an alternative explanation is blatantly dishonest. You don’t have to agree with it or accept it but, since the possibility of ID absolutely exists, outright dismissal of it as an alternative would suggest that you are the victim of presuppositions that have a stranglehold on you.

Oh, it's CAPABLE of offering an alternative explanation. It's just that this explanation is FALSE. Just like Norse mythology is CAPABLE of offering an explanation of the origins of man and the universe, but is nonetheless FALSE. See how this works? When ID is actually applied in terms of the evidence we have, it falls flat. There are no human and dinosaur bones co-existing, as there would be if there was Noah's flood. Not every aspect of every organism's "design" is meaningful. Have you found a use for your appendix yet? Also, designing a man, and not realizing that he would need a biologically compatible female human as his mate, is not all that "intelligent". Did got create female koalas from the rib bone of a male koala? Did God create the male Koala from dust also? If God designed things in an "intelligent" manner, why did they have to employ evolution to keep up with a changing environment? Wouldn't God, as an intelligent designer, have intelligently designed them to deal with such things? Don't tell me that God created evolution for this purpose, unless you are capable of showing me the biblical verse that explicitly and unambiguously says so. Hell, God doesn't even understand the proper taxonomy of the things he creates (he thinks bats are birds) and doesn't even realize that there are no four legged insects. What an intelligent designer indeed.
Seriously though... What would happen if the Great Green Arkleseizure didn't fram up the rammastam before the hermite curve achieved maximum nurdfurdle velocity? Now THAT would be something. AmIrite?

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #38 on: January 27, 2012, 11:46:18 AM »
BS:

Compare and contrast then shall we? You first.
ID: Irreducible complexity, added: specified complexity
Science: Emerging Complexity

ID: Design Inference
Evolution: Natural Selection

There is no reason to compare and contrast. Does Intelligent Design theory offer an alternative to Common Descent or not? To say that it does not is not only false, it is blatantly dishonest.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5242
  • Darwins +599/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #39 on: January 27, 2012, 12:05:53 PM »
There is no reason to compare and contrast. Does Intelligent Design theory offer an alternative to Common Descent or not? To say that it does not is not only false, it is blatantly dishonest.
On the contrary, there is every reason to compare and contrast.

For example, the Greeks believed that a goddess named Selene pulled the Moon in its path through the heavens with a mule.  That is an alternative to the scientific explanation that the Earth rotates around its axis which causes the apparent position of the Moon to change.  If we did not compare and contrast the two, how could we effectively determine which was the more accurate explanation?  So, too, must we compare and contrast intelligent design and the theory of common descent, in order to determine which is the more accurate explanation.  It makes no sense to simply say, "it's an alternative explanation and that's all we need to consider".

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #40 on: January 27, 2012, 12:09:27 PM »
BS:

Compare and contrast then shall we? You first.
ID: Irreducible complexity, added: specified complexity
Science: Emerging Complexity

ID: Design Inference
Evolution: Natural Selection

There is no reason to compare and contrast. Does Intelligent Design theory offer an alternative to Common Descent or not? To say that it does not is not only false, it is blatantly dishonest.

I do agree that it is not necessary (ADDED for clarity-for you and I)  to compare and contrast (ADDED: since it has already been done), but it was you that said to study it...do you recall saying that? Do you not think it is necessary for you to study the "alternative" to evolution? If not then why your challenge to look at ID? That is dishonest.

In order to know a counterfeit, it is not necessary to study counterfeits. When one has studied the real thing, one recognizes a counterfeit when one sees it. - U.S. Treasury agent

But irreducible complexity, design inference and
specified complexity does not hold up under scientific scrutiny.

Darwin gave one way that his theory could be shown invalid:

In The Origin of Species, he wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."

And neither has anyone else.

This is why, to answer your question "Does Intelligent Design theory offer an alternative to Common Descent or not? To say that it does not is not only false, it is blatantly dishonest. "

No, it does not, and to suggest otherwise is not only false, but blatantly dishonest.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2012, 12:13:09 PM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #41 on: January 27, 2012, 12:37:57 PM »
I'm just curious, BS. If you're going to lie and make ridiculous comments, why not go back to the thread that you ran off from last time (amidst a flurry of childish whining and accusations of persecution, might I add) and lie there. There are still many posters awaiting to hear the lies you come up with to defend the last set of lies you spewed.

You've kept us waiting so long to resume the show. Just tell me when and I'll get the popcorn ready.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #42 on: January 27, 2012, 12:40:47 PM »
BS, it is bad enough that you are being disingenuous. But the drive by shooting (one post and then you disappear) makes it impossible to carry on a conversation.

In my Reply 21 I responded to your claim that there were many educated persons that held your view by asking you for some examples. You ignored that.

I also received no acknowledgment of my reply 30.

You got pawned in my Reply 32. No response from you.

Reply 36 I accepted your challenge to study ID by comparing and constrasting it to evolution. Your response was to say it was not necessary.

In my Reply 46 you get pawned again. Called out for your dishonesty.

In this Reply, I am telling you that either:

You are being dishonest,
You are an IDiot,
Or, you are unable to admit when you are wrong.

In any case,  there is no purpose in trying to hold meaningful dialog with you. You are a disgrace to IDiots, and should be ashamed to claim you are one of them. You have opened yourself up to ridicule from  the members of this forum and to your fellow IDiots and Christians.

What a sad, sad puppet you are.
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6753
  • Darwins +817/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #43 on: January 27, 2012, 01:07:33 PM »
I have to ask BibleStudent and others who disagree to provide me with alternative explanations that both a) reasonably explain such things as naked mole rats and parasitic fungi in ants and eyelash mites as well as kitty cats and daisies and elephants, and b) provides a testable systemic method (other than the scientific one, I presume) to back up and verify the various claims being made.


INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Study it, research it, and learn it to the same extent that you have come to understand the ToE. To say that ID is incapable of offering an alternative explanation is blatantly dishonest. You don’t have to agree with it or accept it but, since the possibility of ID absolutely exists, outright dismissal of it as an alternative would suggest that you are the victim of presuppositions that have a stranglehold on you.

I have looked at it. I have read about Behe and irreducible complexity, I have done the same with Dembski and specified complexity. I have read articles promoting intelligent designers and a fine-tuned universe. Sadly for them, I wasn't born yesterday and none of their arguments make and sense when compared to the real world, which they purport to explain.

The intelligent design movement is a blatant effort to teach god stuff when there is no god stuff to teach. That is all it is. What it calls science, science calls ridiculous. Their science is bad, their math is bad, their understanding of finite possibilities is bad, their understanding of the capabilities of nature is bad. They so much want their view to be right that they are willing to make crap up so that it sounds good. This is not good science. It's not even science. And if you're impressed, it might mean that your standards are equally low, and that you'll fall for anything as long as it lets to keep your tiny little religious world.

Why would a god, making a world designed for us (fine-tuned universe) populate it not only with tiny lice that live harmlessly in the eyelids of 1/3 or the worlds population, but also parasitic worms that get into human eyes and blind us, leprosy, mosquitos, let alone malaria carrying mosquitos, rabies, poison snakes and spiders and toads and mushrooms, or poison oak? If you look closely, you'll see that each of those things affect believers and unbelievers at exactly the same rate. So it has nothing to do with punishing the evil in the world.

Evolution can explain each and every one of those things. Not because each was a planned outcome, but that each was a byproduct when certain organisms evolved. Be they parasitic worms or snakes that can kill with a bite. Each had a reason to evolve because it gave those specific organisms an advantage, and because of that advantage they lived to procreate more often than similar, non-poisonous or non-blinding or non-rotting. To explain poison oak via intelligent design or a fine-tuned universe is a tad bit silly.

There are different kinds of eyes on different kinds of critters. Octopi eyes are similar to human eyes, but we're not related. They evolved separately. Spiders have eyes. Flies have eyes. Very different from our own but still very effective. And biology can show how these various eyes evolved over time to be advantageous to the organism without springing into being suddenly, as Behe would want you to think.

If intelligent design has merit, it should be easy for it's proponents to demonstrate with astounding clarity a variety of biological and geological phenomena that have no other explanation. Not all scientists are atheists, and if there was soundness to any of their arguments, there would be scientists who would be able to verify, through science, such claims. You may not like where science has taken the facts, but it is a process that could just as effectively to prove intelligent design as it now proves current physics and biology and geology.

An finely tuned universe, even if applied just to earth, would have no cliffs to fall off of, shallow oceans so we couldn't drown, no dangerous critters, light trees and rocks so we couldn't get hurt when they fell or were thrown, be free of disease and allergies and injury, at least for the believers, and better weather. An undesigned universe would none of those things and more, and it does. We can prove it with one phrase. s**t happens.

If your beloved intelligent design movement has merit, tell us what it is. Right now those of us capable of being critical when we see faulty thinking assume otherwise. Note that I have just given you seven paragraphs telling you why I disagree with the concept. You gave me one short paragraph applauding your beloved concept, which I assume you expected to clearly convey your side of the story. Life is brief, but it's not so short that you can't take the time to give us a few examples of what specifically impresses you about intelligent design, and why. Until you can do something besides use the word liar over and over (and yes I know, my side uses the word too), you aren't going to be making much progress in converting this atheist to your side. Nor do much impressing me with your intellect.

Even for you, god operating in mysterious ways can cover just so much of reality. After that we have to look at other stuff. And we do. You loose in the process. What sort of real god would allow that?

Edit: Got a little careless in my last paragraph and had to come back and fix it. Such is life.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2012, 01:40:29 PM by ParkingPlaces »
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #44 on: January 27, 2012, 02:19:22 PM »
In my Reply 21 I responded to your claim that there were many educated persons that held your view by asking you for some examples. You ignored that.


http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2007-07-30T14_08_10-07_00
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford

"Modern Darwinism is built on what I will be calling “The Primary Axiom”. The Primary Axiom is that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection. Within our society’s academia, the Primary Axiom is universally taught, and almost universally accepted. It is the constantly mouthed mantra, repeated endlessly on every college campus…… To my own amazement, I gradually realized that the seemingly “great and unassailable fortress” which has been built up around the primary axiom is really a house of cards. The Primary Axiom is actually an extremely vulnerable theory, in fact it is essentially indefensible. Its apparent invincibility derives mostly from bluster, smoke, and mirrors. A large part of what keeps the Axiom standing is an almost mystical faith, which the true-believers have in the omnipotence of natural selection…. It has become my conviction that the Primary Axiom is insidious on the highest level, having catastrophic impact on countless human lives." Dr. John C Sanford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford)

"When we come to examine the simplest known organism capable of independent existence, the situation becomes even more fantastic. In the DNA chain of the chromosome of the bacterium E. coli, a favourite organism used by molecular biologists, the [DNA] helix consists of 3-4 million base pairs. These are all arranged in a sequence that is 'meaningful' in the sense that it gives rise to enzyme molecules which fit the various metabolites and products used by the cell. This unique sequence represents a choice of one out of 102,000,000 alternative ways of arranging the bases! We are compelled to conclude that the origin of the first life was a unique event, which cannot be discussed in terms of probability."The University of London cell biologist Dr. Ambrose

"A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 41,000 forms. Using a little algebra we can see that 41,000=10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension."Frank B. Salisbury, evolutionist biologist

I also received no acknowledgment of my reply 30.

Let’s start with this one:

Human Genome Project Supports Adam, Not Darwin     
 

Feb 21, 2011 — Science magazine last week had a special series of articles on the 10-year anniversary of the Human Genome project. 

John Mattick of the University of Queensland commented about how “The Genomic Foundation is Shifting” in his brief essay for Science.  “For me,” he began, “the most important outcome of the human genome project has been to expose the fallacy that most genetic information is expressed as proteins.”  He spoke of the Central Dogma of genetics – the principle that DNA is the master controller of heredity, translating its information into proteins that create our bodies and brains.  For one thing, the number of genes is far smaller than expected (only 1.5% of human DNA contains genes), and is overwhelmed by non-coding DNA (earlier assumed to be genetic junk) that generates RNA, that regulates the expression of genes, especially during development.  The histone code and other revelations have generated “aftershocks” to the initial tremor that undermined the Central Dogma.  He concluded,

"These observations suggest that we need to reassess the underlying genetic orthodoxy, which is deeply ingrained and has been given superficial reprieve by uncritically accepted assumptions about the nature and power of combinatorial control.  As Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock wrote in 1950: “Are we letting a philosophy of the [protein-coding] gene control [our] reasoning?  What, then, is the philosophy of the gene?  Is it a valid philosophy?” … There is an alternative: Human complexity has been built on a massive expansion of genomic regulatory sequences, most of which are transacted by RNAs that use generic protein infrastructure and control the epigenetic mechanisms underpinning embryogenesis and brain function.  I see the human genome not simply as providing detail, but more importantly, as the beginning of a conceptual enlightenment in biology."

In another essay in the 18 February issue of Science, Maynard Olson [U of Washington, Seattle] asked, “What Does a ‘Normal’ Human Genome Look Like?”  Olson did not wish to get embroiled in old debates about nature vs. nurture other than to acknowledge that they still exist despite the publication of the human genome.  Instead, he asked what factors are minor players in human variation.  One of them, he said, in a statement that might have raised Darwin’s eyebrows, is “balancing selection, the evolutionary process that favors genetic diversification rather than the fixation of a single ‘best’ variant”; instead, he continued, this “appears to play a minor role outside the immune system.”  Another also-ran are the variations we most often notice in people: “Local adaptation, which accounts for variation in traits such as pigmentation, dietary specialization, and susceptibility to particular pathogens is also a second-tier player.”  The primary factor is another eyebrow-raiser for Darwinists:

What is on the top tier?  Increasingly, the answer appears to be mutations that are ‘deleterious’ by biochemical or standard evolutionary criteria. These mutations, as has long been appreciated, overwhelmingly make up the most abundant form of nonneutral variation in all genomes. A model for human genetic individuality is emerging in which there actually is a ‘wild-type’ human genome—one in which most genes exist in an evolutionarily optimized form.  There just are no ‘wild-type’ humans: We each fall short of this Platonic ideal in our own distinctive ways.

Did you catch that?  These are phenomenal admissions in a secular science journal.  Mattick showed how many ways the evolutionary geneticists were wrong.  They expected to find the secret of our humanness in DNA – the master controller, honed by evolution, that made us what we are.  Instead, they were astonished to find complexity in a vast array of regulatory sequences beyond the genes (epigenetic, above the gene), including codes upon codes.  They appear to make DNA just a side show in a much more complex story that will require a “conceptual enlightenment in biology.”  This implies that pre-Human Genome biology was unenlightened.  By quoting McClintock’s prescient questions, he declared that the philosophy of biology that has ruled the 19th and 20th centuries is invalid.

Olson’s revelations are even more shocking, and, in a way, delightful – for those who believe that the Bible, not Darwin, tells where man came from.  Olson essentially said that Darwinists should pack up and go home, because the factors that they have counted on to explain human complexity are minor players.  Then he said that most mutations are harmful, bad, deleterious, regressive, plaguing each individual person.  For the coup-de-grace, he said that there seems to be a “Platonic ideal” of the human makeup (wild-type referring to natural) from which we all “fall short.”  This is the opposite of Darwinian evolutionary ascent from slime; it is descent with modification downward from an initial ideal state.  Biblical creationists will shout Amen: we have all fallen from Adam!


Source: excerpts from  http://creationsafaris.com/crev201102.htm



Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #45 on: January 27, 2012, 02:43:56 PM »
The intelligent design movement is a blatant effort to teach god stuff when there is no god stuff to teach. That is all it is. What it calls science, science calls ridiculous. Their science is bad, their math is bad, their understanding of finite possibilities is bad, their understanding of the capabilities of nature is bad. They so much want their view to be right that they are willing to make crap up so that it sounds good. This is not good science. It's not even science.
These are simply your opinions. Do you have anything to offer that supports your criticisms.

Why would a god, making a world designed for us (fine-tuned universe) populate it not only with tiny lice that live harmlessly in the eyelids of 1/3 or the worlds population, but also parasitic worms that get into human eyes and blind us, leprosy, mosquitos, let alone malaria carrying mosquitos, rabies, poison snakes and spiders and toads and mushrooms, or poison oak? If you look closely, you'll see that each of those things affect believers and unbelievers at exactly the same rate. So it has nothing to do with punishing the evil in the world.
You are not as familiar with ID as you have asserted because ID as science makes no claims about an omnipotent or omniscient creator.

Furthermore, your argument contends that a Creator would/should do such and such and you should know that is a weak logical argument to make. Just because something “does” or “doesn’t”  do something you feel it "should" or "shouldn't" does not mean it “isn’t.”

Evolution can explain each and every one of those things. Not because each was a planned outcome, but that each was a byproduct when certain organisms evolved. Be they parasitic worms or snakes that can kill with a bite. Each had a reason to evolve because it gave those specific organisms an advantage, and because of that advantage they lived to procreate more often than similar, non-poisonous or non-blinding or non-rotting.

There are different kinds of eyes on different kinds of critters. Octopi eyes are similar to human eyes, but we're not related. They evolved separately. Spiders have eyes. Flies have eyes. Very different from our own but still very effective. And biology can show how these various eyes evolved over time to be advantageous to the organism without springing into being suddenly, as Behe would want you to think.
Evolution offers a *possible* explanation just as ID does.

An finely tuned universe, even if applied just to earth, would have no cliffs to fall off of, shallow oceans so we couldn't drown, no dangerous critters, light trees and rocks so we couldn't get hurt when they fell or were thrown, be free of disease and allergies and injury, at least for the believers, and better weather. An undesigned universe would none of those things and more, and it does. We can prove it with one phrase. s**t happens.
Again, I have to question your understanding of ID because ID as science makes no claims about an omnipotent or omniscient creator.

If your beloved intelligent design movement has merit, tell us what it is.
Check this out and let me know what you think:




Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #46 on: January 27, 2012, 03:01:17 PM »

<snip>

^^^ Basically you couldn't make your own argument, so you just quoted others. Outstanding, BS.

"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +78/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #47 on: January 27, 2012, 03:15:20 PM »

<snip>

^^^ Basically you couldn't make your own argument, so you just quoted others. Outstanding, BS.

At least when I presented the same argument I did so in my own words. BibleStudent, what is your take on that comment I made? Does entropy support the fall from Adam?
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #48 on: January 27, 2012, 03:15:24 PM »
Oh, it's CAPABLE of offering an alternative explanation. It's just that this explanation is FALSE. Just like Norse mythology is CAPABLE of offering an explanation of the origins of man and the universe, but is nonetheless FALSE. See how this works? When ID is actually applied in terms of the evidence we have, it falls flat. There are no human and dinosaur bones co-existing, as there would be if there was Noah's flood. Not every aspect of every organism's "design" is meaningful. Have you found a use for your appendix yet? Also, designing a man, and not realizing that he would need a biologically compatible female human as his mate, is not all that "intelligent". Did got create female koalas from the rib bone of a male koala? Did God create the male Koala from dust also? If God designed things in an "intelligent" manner, why did they have to employ evolution to keep up with a changing environment? Wouldn't God, as an intelligent designer, have intelligently designed them to deal with such things? Don't tell me that God created evolution for this purpose, unless you are capable of showing me the biblical verse that explicitly and unambiguously says so. Hell, God doesn't even understand the proper taxonomy of the things he creates (he thinks bats are birds) and doesn't even realize that there are no four legged insects. What an intelligent designer indeed.

You obviously lack a basic understanding of Intelligent Design theory because it makes no claims about an omnipotent or omniscient god let alone what constitutes the  mind, motivations, intentions, or plans of any such god.

You are simply projecting your idea of what God could/should be doing based on your own contrivances.

No one is asking you to believe in the Christian God. But to dismiss the possibility that ID offers a valid alternative based on a personal opinion of what God should or should not be doing is, frankly, borderline ignorant. 

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6753
  • Darwins +817/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #49 on: January 27, 2012, 03:21:21 PM »
BibleStudent

I have to work this afternoon and don't have time to reply right away to your post. However, I need to point out that" even as you insist that ID doesn't require a god, you quote someone in your reply to monkeymind that ends with the phrase "Biblical creationists will shout Amen: we have all fallen from Adam! "

If you are going to deny that all the people who believe ID in it's structure form are not christians, I'll need to see secular endorsement. And you need to understand that if you think there is a possibility of a non-god like intelligence behind all of this stuff, you should at least let us know how you think your god is involved, if at all.

I will watch the video and read both the monkeymind post and the one you directed at me and respond this evening when I am done working. And it looks like there will probably be others as well, which I may comment on as well.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #50 on: January 27, 2012, 03:37:45 PM »
 
At least when I presented the same argument I did so in my own words.

That’s terrific. Did you get the WWGHA “I Really Said It In My Own Words” award ?

 
BibleStudent, what is your take on that comment I made? Does entropy support the fall from Adam?

I feel like I am sitting in a restaurant and the waiter just set four automobile tires down in front of me. Where did this come from and how does it apply to the topic in this thread? 

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #51 on: January 27, 2012, 03:57:34 PM »

You obviously lack a basic understanding of Intelligent Design theory because it makes no claims about an omnipotent or omniscient god let alone what constitutes the  mind, motivations, intentions, or plans of any such god.


You're right, it doesn't. It just says that a being created the universe, and all living things. IT's also supported by religion and religious groups.

It's main proponent is the Discovery Institute, who outright say that they propose the Christian God. Not to mention Stuart Burgess, Phillip E. Johnson, William Dembski, and Stephen C. Meyer are evangelical Protestants, and Michael Behe.

But yeah, no claim about a god. None at all.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2012, 04:00:14 PM by Alzael »
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #52 on: January 27, 2012, 04:04:23 PM »
BibleStudent

I have to work this afternoon and don't have time to reply right away to your post.

No problem. I have some things going on later on, too, so I may not respond right away to your response.

Quote
However, I need to point out that" even as you insist that ID doesn't require a god, you quote someone in your reply to monkeymind that ends with the phrase "Biblical creationists will shout Amen: we have all fallen from Adam! "

If you are going to deny that all the people who believe ID in it's structure form are not christians, I'll need to see secular endorsement. And you need to understand that if you think there is a possibility of a non-god like intelligence behind all of this stuff, you should at least let us know how you think your god is involved, if at all.

I infer from your comments that you think I am participating here with the intent to try and sell you on the reality of the God I believe in. That is not the case so let’s just leave Him out of it for now. The OP indicates that something needs to be done in order to brainwash us theist idiots into believing this “ ToE-explains-everything” crap. Like you, many of us were not born yesterday and we are not going to let people like the OP shove some of this slop up our asses….especially when it comes to efforts that seek to indoctrinate our children in the classroom.

Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #53 on: January 27, 2012, 04:13:07 PM »
The OP indicates that something needs to be done in order to brainwash us theist idiots into believing this “ ToE-explains-everything” crap. Like you, many of us were not born yesterday and we are not going to let people like the OP shove some of this slop up our asses….especially when it comes to efforts that seek to indoctrinate our children in the classroom.

Pot....Kettle....Black.
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #54 on: January 27, 2012, 04:17:27 PM »

You obviously lack a basic understanding of Intelligent Design theory because it makes no claims about an omnipotent or omniscient god let alone what constitutes the  mind, motivations, intentions, or plans of any such god.


You're right, it doesn't. It just says that a being created the universe, and all living things. IT's also supported by religion and religious groups.

It's main proponent is the Discovery Institute, who outright say that they propose the Christian God. Not to mention Stuart Burgess, Phillip E. Johnson, William Dembski, and Stephen C. Meyer are evangelical Protestants, and Michael Behe.

But yeah, no claim about a god. None at all.

Argumentum ad Hominem : the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of the individual(s) who is/are advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #55 on: January 27, 2012, 04:20:57 PM »

You obviously lack a basic understanding of Intelligent Design theory because it makes no claims about an omnipotent or omniscient god let alone what constitutes the  mind, motivations, intentions, or plans of any such god.


You're right, it doesn't. It just says that a being created the universe, and all living things. IT's also supported by religion and religious groups.

It's main proponent is the Discovery Institute, who outright say that they propose the Christian God. Not to mention Stuart Burgess, Phillip E. Johnson, William Dembski, and Stephen C. Meyer are evangelical Protestants, and Michael Behe.

But yeah, no claim about a god. None at all.

Argumentum ad Hominem : the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of the individual(s) who is/are advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument.

Blueberry Pancake: A thin, flat, round cake prepared from a batter into which blueberries have been mixed, and cooked on a hot griddle or frying pan.

How is that relevant, you ask?  Hmm, good question.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #56 on: January 27, 2012, 04:26:50 PM »
I do want to retract a statement that I made, BS. You shouldn't be ashamed, you are probably not an embarrassment to your creation buddies. You are pretty much the typical creationist. In fact, I think by practicing your poly-parroted lines, sticking your fingers in your ears, and going lalalal, you could rise to the level of IDiot puppetmaster.

First of all, educated does not mean right. I was just wondering where you got your ideas, if not from Behehe and Dumbski whose ideas which are the foundation of ID have been discredited by the scientific community. I want to know what you think, in your own words. But really, it's not about what you or I think, science trumps faith every time.

Was all that supposed to be for your side? I don't see it. Maybe you can enlighten me as to what you think it all says. Comments in green were not your own. For crying out loud can you not even think for yourself?
Quote
We are compelled to conclude that the origin of the first life was a unique event, which cannot be discussed in terms of probability."The University of London cell biologist Dr. Ambrose

Of course not, since it did happen it can  not be discussed as a probability, it is a certainty.
Quote
Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros!
This number is completely beyond our comprehension."Frank B. Salisbury, evolutionist biologist

Yes, it is beyond our comprehension. So?
Quote
I see the human genome not simply as providing detail, but more importantly, as the beginning of a conceptual enlightenment in biology."
So what do you think this means?
Quote
Then he said that most mutations are harmful, bad, deleterious, regressive, plaguing each individual person.


Not true at all. Most are neutral. Harmful mutations don't last as long as beneficial mutations. And it depends on environment. Lots of mutations in some environments are a good thing, that is, advantageous. I'd provide links to the appropriate literature, but since they are not on creation websites, you won't read them (based on your statement that it is not necessary to compare and contrast).


fixed typo
« Last Edit: January 27, 2012, 05:01:21 PM by monkeymind »
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5242
  • Darwins +599/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What can we do?
« Reply #57 on: January 27, 2012, 04:44:38 PM »

You obviously lack a basic understanding of Intelligent Design theory because it makes no claims about an omnipotent or omniscient god let alone what constitutes the  mind, motivations, intentions, or plans of any such god.


You're right, it doesn't. It just says that a being created the universe, and all living things. IT's also supported by religion and religious groups.

It's main proponent is the Discovery Institute, who outright say that they propose the Christian God. Not to mention Stuart Burgess, Phillip E. Johnson, William Dembski, and Stephen C. Meyer are evangelical Protestants, and Michael Behe.

But yeah, no claim about a god. None at all.

Argumentum ad Hominem : the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of the individual(s) who is/are advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument.
Now you have to show how what he said is an ad hominem, instead of simply stating the definition of one.

By the way, I looked over the material you cited, and to be honest, I'm not impressed.  You seem to have a habit of trying to let other people's words speak for themselves, except that they don't.  You see, citing a source is meaningless unless you incorporate it into the main thread of your own argument.  That means you write your argument and cite sections of your source material in order to support it, not simply pile several citations together and present them as an agglomerated post with nothing of your own to serve as a framework.