Author Topic: Public Charter Schools Teaching Creationism And Right-Wing Propaganda In Texas  (Read 15789 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4933
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Terrible analogy.  Just terrible.
Actually, it's a better example than it seems.  You see, sound travels slower than light, so logically, it would be possible for thunder to precede lightning (but get raced because lightning is so much faster).  Now, as it happens, we've determined that this is not the case, but it was not determined by intuitive thinking ("Of course lightning comes first, because we see the lightning bolt before we hear the sound of thunder!"), but by careful observation and experimentation.  The electrical discharge heats the air, and the air expands as a result; as it cools, the air rapidly contracts, causing the sound of thunder (air rushing back into formerly-superheated area).

Sometimes intuition matches science, but sometimes it does not (like the apparent motion of the sun going around the Earth).  Thus we cannot trust intuitive answers, like intelligent design (which is, at its heart, the intuition that sufficient complexity cannot come about naturally) without the opportunity to thoroughly test them.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6673
  • Darwins +887/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Maybe telling someone they don't understand science is not condescension, but a real need for someone to have some background information about the scientific fields they are casually and with apparent ignorance, dismissing? Science-- real science-- is awesome, fun and interesting. Even more important it works!

What the ID proponents don't get (or at least they pretend not to get) is that they have nothing to offer but the same old supernatural religious magic but with scienc-y sounding terminology. Saying that there is a being who made life happen by supernatural means is no different from saying that angry invisible beings (gods) cause earthquakes in California to punish people, or saying that magic words (prayers) will protect a soldier from bullets and bombs. Equal amount of evidence for each of these ideas, ie none. ID gets you nowhere. Origin of life? Good luck trying to discover it with "IDT". Science might not find it any time soon, either, but at least real science has a track record of success, and a procedure to find out what is false, unlike religious magic.

ID is just putting Dumbledore the Wizard in a lab coat--and trying to convince people that now Avada Kedavra is an actual chemical formula for a new environmentally safe energy source, not a magic spell that supposedly causes instant death. No matter how much research you do on Avada Kedavra, you will not get any positive result, because it is a magical spell based on a made up story. It's a nice compliment that magic is trying to imitate science, sincerest form of flattery and all.  But supernatural magic is not-- and never will be-- real science. Got that?

Supernatural magic is not-- and never will be-- real science.

We have non-magical science that works rather well.  Real evidence-based science research produces communications satellites in space, enables people to undergo and survive routine life-saving surgery, to have, for the first time in human history, infant mortality rates so low that most people in the world can have 1 or 2 kids and know they will survive to adulthood.

Life is not a paradise by any means. People still do bad and stupid things, and nature is still actively trying to kill us all.  But I challenge the anti-real-science people to name any area of everyday life that is not hugely better in 2014 CE than it was in 414 BCE, 1414 CE or 14 CE. Cars, planes, computers, cell phones. Antibiotics, sanitation systems, the ability to predict hurricanes and tornadoes. Blood transfusions, contraception, refrigeration, central heating and air conditioning. Dental care, vision care and hearing aids. People have gotten so used to science working well that all this become routine-- at least for those who can afford to pay.

The main thing that has changed in the past few centuries is that with the development of the scientific method of investigation, people no longer have to rely on the supernatural. Magic still lurks in the shrinking areas where science has not yet reached, or for the times when science doesn't work.[1] But on the whole, people know they can rely on science, even to the point of taking it for granted and just assuming that stuff based on it will work. 

To dismiss this as insignificant because none of it validates your particular supernatural beliefs is to say that people don't need accurate information about the world: that every illness or infection should be life-threatening, that nobody needs to know that a hurricane will hit their town in two days, that parents burying 2 or 3 of their children is just fine. Because that is the way the intelligent designer made it, and he wants it to be that way.

The Taliban destroyed weather stations in Afghanistan, because predicting the weather would be challenging god. However, they would probably approve of research into ID, since they are supremely confident that the intelligent designer would turn out to be Allah, not Brahma.  &)
 1. People don't just stand around and pray to the "intelligent designer" when someone gets hit by a truck-- they call the paramedics and let medical science do its thing. People in the US don't pray for food not to spoil-- they put it in the fridge. Why do people pray for rain in a drought? Because science cannot yet make rain fall on demand. When and if that happens, there will never be another rain dance or rain prayer again. Prayer, since it is useless, is reserved for when there is nothing more that science can do...
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
No, I do not, and neither does the scientific community.  Please address my review of Dembski's "CSI" here which I revealed "CSI" to be pseudoscience.

Your essay bears an extraordinary similarity to this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/dembski.html

The layout, approach, and the argument you used follows the same sequence. You even used the same titles for each of the sections.

Next time, you might just want to indicate that you found someone else’s approach useful and decided to use it as template for your own work. There is nothing wrong with doing this. I haven’t checked to see if you used any of the actual wording from the article but you need to be a little more transparent about your sources.

Wow.  Are you actually accusing me of plagiarism?  I'll take that as a complement, it's nice to know that others came to the same or similar conclusions that I did on my own.

So let me get this straight, instead of actually reading my review and understanding it (which I took the time to actually read Dembski's article and understand it, as well as identifying the problems with it) you went looking for another review of the article so you can accuse me of at best being biased or at worst plagiarizing someone elses work.

Did you even bother reading the Talk Origins article?  It actually is not similar to mine.

My review was a side by side review of each of Dembski's sections. 

The Talk Origins review however presents all of Dembski's arguments first and then reviews where it believes Dembski went wrong.  This article at talk origins was not a side by side review.

Since both Talk Origins and I reviewed the same article by Dembski, of course we are going to note exactly what Dembski claims in his article.  Also the Talk Origins review goes into more detail regarding specific information theory concepts, I did not.  The Talk Origins review also seems to be more concerned with Dembski's claims where as I specifically note the inconsistencies in Dembski's use of his own definitions.  What is also important to note is that the inconsistencies that I note, are not noted in the Talk Origins review, and actually, the Talk Origins review noted different inconsistencies that I missed.

Interesting enough, the Talk Origins review addresses several parts of Dembski's 1998 article that I did not.

For instance:

[1] The Talk Origins review states

Quote
"Information is a complexity-theoretic notion. Indeed, as a purely formal object, the information measure described here is a complexity measure (cf. Dembski, 1998, ch. 4). Complexity measures arise whenever we assign numbers to degrees of complication. A set of possibilities will often admit varying degrees of complication, ranging from extremely simple to extremely complicated. Complexity measures assign non-negative numbers to these possibilities so that 0 corresponds to the most simple and _ [sic] to the most complicated. For instance, computational complexity is always measured in terms of either time (i.e., number of computational steps) or space (i.e., size of memory, usually measured in bits or bytes) or some combination of the two. The more difficult a computational problem, the more time and space are required to run the algorithm that solves the problem. For information measures, degree of complication is measured in bits. Given an event A of probability P(A), I(A) = -log2P(A) measures the number of bits associated with the probability P(A). We therefore speak of the "complexity of information" and say that the complexity of information increases as I(A) increases (or, correspondingly, as P(A) decreases). We also speak of "simple" and "complex" information according to whether I(A) signifies few or many bits of information. This notion of complexity is important to biology since not just the origin of information stands in question, but the origin of complex information."

Note that, for some reason, Dembski mentions computational complexity here, but does not specifically link it to an information measure, which is well, because the two concepts are not the same – but the implication is questionable


Where as I didn't make any observation regarding the section that the review quotes.

[2] The Talk Origins review states

Quote
Dembski proposes two subsidiary conditions to the independence condition between patterns and information:

"(1) a condition to stochastic conditional independence between the information in question and certain relevant background knowledge; and

(2) a tractability condition whereby the pattern in question can be constructed from the aforementioned background knowledge.
"

Both of which he notes are not easily formalized. He does, however, state that it is easy to determine in practice whether a pattern is given independent of a possibility, "if the pattern is given prior to the possibility being actualized." Life, he states, is a case in which a pattern is given after a possibility is actualized, yet he claims it also represents complex specified information or CSI.

Which I didn't address in my review and didn't come to the conclusion made in the Talk Origins review.

[3] The Talk Origins review actually addresses the section of Dembski's article regarding patterned information, where as I do not, in fact I actually was willing to accept Dembski's definition of "Specified" which Dembski defines as patterend information.

Quote
The roots of another big mistake are here:

"Specified information is always patterned information, but patterned information is not always specified information. For specified information not just any pattern will do. We therefore distinguish between the "good" patterns and the "bad" patterns. The "good" patterns will henceforth be called specifications. Specifications are the independently given patterns that are not simply read off information. By contrast, the "bad" patterns will be called fabrications. Fabrications are the post hoc patterns that are simply read off already existing information..."

The implication is that, given two patterns, we can somehow know which pattern caused the other. He continues:

"The distinction between specified and unspecified information may now be defined as follows: the actualization of a possibility (i.e., information) is specified if independently of the possibility's actualization, the possibility is identifiable by means of a pattern. If not, then the information is unspecified."

Here we have another great leap in Dembski's assumption that, if a pattern exists prior to a possibility being actualized, it must be causal. Anyone trained in statistics must know the danger in making assumptions of causality simply because a correlation between two variables is noted. Correlations do not imply causality between the correlated variables. For example, the correlation between malaria and swamps was observed long ago. The disease malaria was incorrectly attributed to the bad (mal) air (aria) near swamps. The correlation was correctly noted, but the assumption of causality was flawed. While a correlated pattern and actualized possibility may have a related cause, one cannot assume the pattern caused the actualized possibilty. Accordingly, this proposal for detecting design is highly suspect. This is a critical error.

[4] The Talk Origins review states:

Quote
To make matters worse, Dembski relies on knowing the probability of a single event occurring. It is not in general possible to know the probability associated with a single event. One must have statistical knowledge of the process from which the event arose to know its probability with certainty; or a sufficiently large number of samples to estimate it. Pretending the probability somehow depends on the event's Kolmogorov complexity doesn't help.

I did not make this observation.

[5] The Talk Origins review notes the inconsistency in the stated purpose of Dembski's article:

Quote
The farther Dembski goes, the more he resorts to arm-waving. He provides no evidence to support his so-called Law of Conservation of Information, which he admits is a "strong proscriptive claim." Since it is a claim and not a law, any arguments based on it can and should be rejected as pseudo-science.

It is interesting to contrast the stated purpose of the article:

"(1) show how information can be reliably detected and measured, and (2) formulate a conservation law that governs the origin and flow of information"

with his statements further on in the article as he gets to the heart of his argument:

"This is a vast topic whose full elucidation is beyond the scope of this paper (the details can be found in my monograph The Design Inference)."

and

"The aim of this last section is briefly to sketch the Law of Conservation of Information (a full treatment will be given in Uncommon Descent, a book I am jointly authoring with Stephen Meyer and Paul Nelson)."

In other words, having loaded up a long article with glib arm-waving lacking in details, after first claiming that a profound new principle will be formulated in the article - Dembski directs the reader to his next book. He seems to have changed direction, however. He has edited a similarly titled book Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals who find Darwinism Unconvincing, but it only contains a forward by Dembski. His “Law of Conservation of Information” is expounded in No Free Lunch. For a critical review of this book, see The No Free Lunch FAQ.

Which I completely missed in my review.

________________________________


Actually it is pretty clear that the Talk Origins review and my review are almost completely different.  The only similarities are that both Talk Origins and I did a review of Dembski's 1998 article and we came to the same conclusions that Dembski doesn't properly demonstrate why his claims are accurate and that "CSI" is pseudoscience.

You really didn't help your cause because now two different reviewers have uniquely identified different inconsistencies and problems in Dembski's 1998 article.

Now you are just making a fool of yourself.  Either you didn't fully read my review, you didn't fully read the Talk Origins review, or most likely you didn't read either my review or the Talk Origins review.  Another possibility is that you did read both reviews, only you didn't understand them. 

I challenge you to find any exact similar sentence between my review and the review at Talk Origins.  That would be impressive if you did as I had not even seen the Talk Origins review until you linked it.  Thank you for that by the way.

What is also funny, is that you can't accept that I was able to review Dembski's article on my own.  No, you need me to not be able to think for myself.  You've come here with the preconceived notion that everyone is like you, completely dependent on some other source which confirms our bias.  In your case, you are completely dependent on creationism propaganda and how creationists misrepresent science.  You expect that I would be completely dependent on "atheist liberal propaganda".

How sad.

EDIT:

You even used the same titles for each of the sections.

No shit, the titles for each of the sections are the titles of the sections in the Dembski article which both I and Talk Origins reviewed.

You didn't even read Dembski's article did you.

Wow


« Last Edit: February 24, 2014, 03:56:49 PM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Wow.  Are you actually accusing me of plagiarism?

Nope. Just pointing out an observation. If you say that you didn't use the talkorigins article then I have no reason to doubt you are being honest.


Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12275
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Dishonestly accuse of plagiarism:  Check.
Dishonestly deny having accused of plagiarism:  Check.

Avoiding the sin of honesty:  Check.  Heaven awaits!
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2491
  • Darwins +109/-1
  • Gender: Male
Azdgari,

You forgot one thing about Biblestudent

"He thinks of everything to avoid answering questions. See with the plagiarism thing he has made 2 posts and ignored the question he was asked."

I can't for the life of me think where in the bible it tells people to avoid questions and made up stuff about other people. Maybe Biblestudent could tell us chapter and verse....
« Last Edit: February 24, 2014, 04:10:17 PM by wheels5894 »
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Azdgari,

You forgot one thing about Biblestudent

"He thinks of everything to avoid answering questions. See with the plagiarism thing he has made 2 posts and ignored the question he was asked."

I can't for the life of me think where in the bible it tells people to avoid questions and made up stuff about other people. Maybe Biblestudent could tell us chapter and verse....

Did you ever respond to my post #677 ?
That's what I thought.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2491
  • Darwins +109/-1
  • Gender: Male
Azdgari,

You forgot one thing about Biblestudent

"He thinks of everything to avoid answering questions. See with the plagiarism thing he has made 2 posts and ignored the question he was asked."

I can't for the life of me think where in the bible it tells people to avoid questions and made up stuff about other people. Maybe Biblestudent could tell us chapter and verse....

Did you ever respond to my post #677 ?
That's what I thought.

I'll look into it. For now answer the question you have been asked.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Dishonestly accuse of plagiarism:  Check.
Dishonestly deny having accused of plagiarism:  Check.

Avoiding the sin of honesty:  Check.  Heaven awaits!

So does the apology.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Azdgari,

You forgot one thing about Biblestudent

"He thinks of everything to avoid answering questions. See with the plagiarism thing he has made 2 posts and ignored the question he was asked."

I can't for the life of me think where in the bible it tells people to avoid questions and made up stuff about other people. Maybe Biblestudent could tell us chapter and verse....

Did you ever respond to my post #677 ?
That's what I thought.

I'll look into it. For now answer the question you have been asked.

I will answer it when I am ready to answer it.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Dishonestly accuse of plagiarism:  Check.
Dishonestly deny having accused of plagiarism:  Check.

Avoiding the sin of honesty:  Check.  Heaven awaits!

So does the apology.

There is a similar pattern between the SevenPatch's article and the Talkorigins article but I did set them next to each other and there is no evidence of plagiarism.

so....

@SevenPatch-

I apologize if you felt I was accusing you of plagiarism. It appeared you had used the article for reference but I did not check for specific instances of plagiarism which is why I did not accuse you of it.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2491
  • Darwins +109/-1
  • Gender: Male
A few generations ago on page 3 of this of this mammoth discussion, BS gave us some important statements concerning ID - something I asked him to produce to show ID was science and not pseudo-science / creationism. I asked him to show us what was predicted by ID - thinking that if they had something of a proper prediction for which people would have to search for (like locating the positron, predicted in 1935 or the Higgs predicted in 1964). I was not surprised when he produced

Quote
Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):
(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).
(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.
(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.
(4) Much so-called "junk DNA" will turn out to perform valuable functions.
http://www.evolutionnews.org


The lazy ID crowd just used other people's hard work and said their ideas fitted something that they already knew - or maybe they found something and worked the ideas backwards... Who knows - but they don't do science from that list any way!


Now, we are on page 24 as I type. I hope we can finish this off soon as I am convinced we are going round in circles with this discussion.

I would appreciate it if you would provide an honest answer to this question: If we were not arguing whether IDT was scientific, would you agree that the design inference is valid based on the functional, complex, and specified 'information' observed in the strcutures deemed to be 'irreducibly complex?'

I genuinely believe that many people fail to consider this important question and instead go on the attack to disprove IDT as a scientific theory.

And, by the way, you responded with a "so what?" earlier in the thread to a reference I made about a 1,000,000 prize offered for a plausible hypothesis as respects abiogenesis. The fact the no one has been able to collect the prize is compelling so I am not buying your "so what?"

OK, then -

I would not go along with the idea of design / IR since I find the that terms seem to be too much dependent on the observer and too much dependent on the apparent knowledge of these observers to 'know' a particular structure could not have happened naturally. The very best we can say is that we don't know how something came to be - it is certain that there is no definite answer yet. However...

Research is the key to all this - research into the mechanisms, the fossils and so on - for finding a solution, at least on the side of evolution. I don't quite know how ID might proceed to research as they haven't done any yet. I remain certain that without a mechanism and a designer the idea is nothing - just an idea. If there is no designer there is no design, it's as easy as that. Once again, unless we are talking magic, we ought to be able to find out how it was done - for example did this designer follow the rules is Genesis and create and put on the earth the various 'kinds' of living creatures? It would not be that hard to find out, actually, as  there would be not intermediate types in the fossil record if the original 'kinds' don't evolve past their 'own kind'.

These are key questions and someone has to get started on the research as people are going to be certain that ID is exactly what it looks like - creationism in sheep's clothing.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6673
  • Darwins +887/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Dishonestly accuse of plagiarism:  Check.
Dishonestly deny having accused of plagiarism:  Check.

Avoiding the sin of honesty:  Check.  Heaven awaits!

So does the apology.

There is a similar pattern between the SevenPatch's article and the Talkorigins article but I did set them next to each other and there is no evidence of plagiarism.

so....

@SevenPatch-

I apologize if you felt I was accusing you of plagiarism. It appeared you had used the article for reference but I did not check for specific instances of plagiarism which is why I did not accuse you of it.


I had a snippy college professor post about plagiarism all ready, but you wrote this, so I had to retract my post and give you a darwin instead . Damn you. :'(
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.

There is a similar pattern between the SevenPatch's article and the Talkorigins article but I did set them next to each other and there is no evidence of plagiarism.

Admit you didn't read either review, and you didn't even read Dembski's article.  Admit you are a hypocrite.



so....

@SevenPatch-

I apologize if you felt I was accusing you of plagiarism. It appeared you had used the article for reference but I did not check for specific instances of plagiarism which is why I did not accuse you of it.


Ah the non apology apology.

You can take your apology and shove it up your ass.

No I didn't feel you accused me of plagiarism, that is why I asked.  You were damn close though, and your observation was shit because if you actually read either review you would see that they were not similar at all, but instead you assumed they had a "extraordinary similarity"

Even if you were accusing me of plagiarism, I would have taken it as a complement.  Of course that won't change the fact that your observation was shit.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79

There is a similar pattern between the SevenPatch's article and the Talkorigins article but I did set them next to each other and there is no evidence of plagiarism.

Admit you didn't read either review, and you didn't even read Dembski's article.  Admit you are a hypocrite.

I read Dembski's article and your article no less than three times each. If you do not believe me then I DON'T CARE !!!
You're not falsely accusing me of something here, are you ?


Quote

Ah the non apology apology.

You can take your apology and shove it up your ass.

How nice. I see you're not much of the forgiving type. Jesus can help you with that !!

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Dishonestly accuse of plagiarism:  Check.
Dishonestly deny having accused of plagiarism:  Check.

Avoiding the sin of honesty:  Check.  Heaven awaits!

So does the apology.

There is a similar pattern between the SevenPatch's article and the Talkorigins article but I did set them next to each other and there is no evidence of plagiarism.

so....

@SevenPatch-

I apologize if you felt I was accusing you of plagiarism. It appeared you had used the article for reference but I did not check for specific instances of plagiarism which is why I did not accuse you of it.


I had a snippy college professor post about plagiarism all ready, but you wrote this, so I had to retract my post and give you a darwin instead . Damn you. :'(

Sorry. I only say that I'm "right"....not "perfect."   ;D    He deserved an apology and I gave it to him. 

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6673
  • Darwins +887/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Dishonestly accuse of plagiarism:  Check.
Dishonestly deny having accused of plagiarism:  Check.

Avoiding the sin of honesty:  Check.  Heaven awaits!

So does the apology.

There is a similar pattern between the SevenPatch's article and the Talkorigins article but I did set them next to each other and there is no evidence of plagiarism.

so....

@SevenPatch-

I apologize if you felt I was accusing you of plagiarism. It appeared you had used the article for reference but I did not check for specific instances of plagiarism which is why I did not accuse you of it.


I had a snippy college professor post about plagiarism all ready, but you wrote this, so I had to retract my post and give you a darwin instead . Damn you. :'(

Sorry. I only say that I'm "right"....not "perfect."   ;D    He deserved an apology and I gave it to him.

Well, you sorta gave him an apology. Of the legalistic Bill Clinton-esque type:"if you were too sensitive and therefore felt that I did you wrong and would be a happier camper if I said I was sorry, I am sorry". Modern political cover your a$$, admit no real wrongdoing genre. Still, better than nothing. But wouldn't it make your god prouder if you gave a real apology? Do you want to sit in hell next to Big Dawg Bill?
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Dishonestly accuse of plagiarism:  Check.
Dishonestly deny having accused of plagiarism:  Check.

Avoiding the sin of honesty:  Check.  Heaven awaits!

So does the apology.

There is a similar pattern between the SevenPatch's article and the Talkorigins article but I did set them next to each other and there is no evidence of plagiarism.

so....

@SevenPatch-

I apologize if you felt I was accusing you of plagiarism. It appeared you had used the article for reference but I did not check for specific instances of plagiarism which is why I did not accuse you of it.


I had a snippy college professor post about plagiarism all ready, but you wrote this, so I had to retract my post and give you a darwin instead . Damn you. :'(

Don't accept this guy's bullshit.  It's a non apology apology.  He's not sorry.

It's not the first time he's used a non apology apology either.

Here:

Well, it was not my intent to be rude but I apologize if you received my reply that way.

He's not sorry for being rude, he's sorry for how what he said was received.

And here:


I guess an apology is in order. As I mentioned a couple of posts above, I honestly didn't think some of my hyperbole would be taken so literally.

He's not sorry for his statements being unclear, he's sorry we didn't correctly recognize his hyperbole.


______________

He's not sorry for the implication of plagiarism, he's sorry for how I may have felt.

He was trying to invoke a reaction.  He was trolling, and he is wasting my time, but I really don't care.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.

Admit you didn't read either review, and you didn't even read Dembski's article.  Admit you are a hypocrite.

I read Dembski's article and your article no less than three times each. If you do not believe me then I DON'T CARE !!!
You're not falsely accusing me of something here, are you ?

If I'm wrong, and you actually did read the reviews and Dembski's article then I apologize for falsely accusing you.

See, that is what a real apology looks like, I would actually be sorry for falsely accusing you.  Why would I actually be sorry?  Because I don't want to falsely accuse you of anything.

From my position though, I can come to a few conclusions:

1. You didn't actually read the reviews or Dembski's article, which would explain a few of your comments and would make you a hypocrite or:

    a. You don't actually believe ID and "CSI" anyway which would make you a troll.

2. You did actually read the reviews and Dembski's article however you don't understand what is being written which would make you incompetent.

3. You did actually read the reviews and Dembski's article, you do understand them so you know ID and "CSI" are bullshit pseudoscience and either:

   a. Don't care if ID and "CSI" are bullshit pseudoscience which would make you a hypocrite.

   b. Don't actually believe ID and "CSI" anyway which would make you a troll.     

3RD Edit:

There is a way for you BibleStudent to dismiss all of these conclusions and that is to intelligently refute the challenges to ID and "CSI".



Ah the non apology apology.

You can take your apology and shove it up your ass.

How nice. I see you're not much of the forgiving type. Jesus can help you with that !!

I don't need your apology to forgive you.  I've already forgiven you.

My rejection of your fake apology doesn't mean I don't forgive you.  I'm just calling out your bullshit.

If you're not sorry for what you implied then don't fake being sorry.


EDIT: Spelling and Grammar.

2ND EDIT: Added  1 a.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2014, 06:21:56 PM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
How nice. I see you're not much of the forgiving type. Jesus can help you with that !!

Dear Jesus/God/poor man's Dynamo,

I am sorry for being an atheist. Am I forgiven and allowed to join the big shindig in the sky?
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
I'm still waiting for a response BS.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
I don't need your apology to forgive you.  I've already forgiven you.

My rejection of your fake apology doesn't mean I don't forgive you.  I'm just calling out your bullshit.

If you're not sorry for what you implied then don't fake being sorry.

I really don't if you or anyone else thinks it was a "fake apology" or not. I apologized and I genuinely meant it.

This is pathetic that I have to sit here and defend an apology.

And, if you are so convinced that I am ignorant, hypocritical, and incapable of understanding what I a talking about then what the hell are you still here for? Are you a troll or just an idiot?


Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
I'm still waiting for a response BS.

Sorry, Median. Believe me, I would much rather be engaging in discussion about the topics than having to sit here and answer posts about my so-called "non apology apology."

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
I don't need your apology to forgive you.  I've already forgiven you.

My rejection of your fake apology doesn't mean I don't forgive you.  I'm just calling out your bullshit.

If you're not sorry for what you implied then don't fake being sorry.

I really don't if you or anyone else thinks it was a "fake apology" or not. I apologized and I genuinely meant it.

I don't doubt that you were very sorry for how I felt.  However you were only sorry if I felt a certain way, but I didn't feel that certain way, so where does that leave your apology?

This is pathetic that I have to sit here and defend an apology.

Really?  You don't understand my point?

You don't see how the following two sentences are different?

"I apologize for implying that you may have plagiarized someone elses work".

"I apologize if you felt I was accusing you of plagiarism"


And, if you are so convinced that I am ignorant, hypocritical, and incapable of understanding what I a talking about then what the hell are you still here for? Are you a troll or just an idiot?

I don't know that you are incapable of understanding.  You seem to be very resistant to understanding.  That is one reason why I'm here, I have hope that you'll understand.  Maybe that makes me an idiot.

Now if I didn't have any hope that you'll understand, then I would likely be a troll.

It's probable that I'm an idiot.  I wouldn't think of myself as of a troll though, I wouldn't have written a in depth review of Dembski's article if I were a troll.  If I were a troll, I wouldn't have even bothered reading Dembski's article and instead simply attempted to antagonize you. 

There are a few other reasons why I'm here though.  First, I might learn something from someone other than you.  Second, maybe I can demonstrate to the guests who only read these forums why ID and "CSI" are pseudoscience and people like you are silly.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
I'm still waiting for a response BS.

Sorry, Median. Believe me, I would much rather be engaging in discussion about the topics than having to sit here and answer posts about my so-called "non apology apology."

Stop replying to me and reply to Median then.  YOU, BibleStudent, are the one who is avoiding engaging in the relevant topics of discussion.

What you are doing BibleStudent, instead of engaging in the relevant topics of discussion is trying to find a way to dismiss my review of Dembski's "CSI" article (EDIT: or any other valid points made by others) without having to intelligently refute my review or any other valid points.

I don't care about your non apology apology.  I told you what you can do with it, end of story.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2014, 07:48:50 PM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
And this claim of yours amounts to nothing more than an argument from incredulity fallacy. "I just can't see how it could have happened naturally. So therefore it must be impossible. Therefore, Yahweh (magic) did it." FAIL. You simply have no means for determining what is impossible. Your predecessors said the same thing. "That light coming down from the clouds can't be explained any other way. Praise Zeus!!!"

Argument from Incredulity Fallacy - STOP USING IT.

I honestly do not believe it is possible. Frankly, your statement that I “simply have no means for determining what is impossible” is an argument from ignorance since you have no way of knowing whether I am right or not.


Quote
This is the cornerstone of your gullibility.

"Which came first; the lightening or the thunder? It's insurmountable!! See? Zeus did it."

A mere ASSERTION based in your incredulity is a logical fallacy. Again you have no viable means for demonstrating how you know something is "insurmountable". You just keep SAYING it over and over like a fricking mantra, and each time you do it doesn't make it any less fallacious.

Again, from where I sit and based on what I know, there are insurmountable problems with abiogenesis. Until it is falsified (if that is even possible) or demonstrated by evidence to have  occurred, then you are making an argument from ignorance because, at present, you have no way of knowing whether I am right or not.


Quote
So many fallacies, so little time. 1. If it were true that there was no known natural "law" that could explain the hypothesis of abiogenesis (and you are using that term incorrectly) then YOU would have to claim ignorance on the subject, too, and be an agnostic.

I don’t follow your line of reasoning. How does the non-existence of a natural law result in me having to claim ignorance?


Quote
But you're not, are you? You move beyond science, positing mmmmmagic!, while trying to pretend it's science.

I am not pretending that it is science. So far, even though I have asked, no one has been able to point out a universally accepted demarcation that precludes ID from being a scientific endeavor. Instead, what I have been presented with are a lot of opinions on why people feel it should be excluded as science. As I stated earlier, IDT is testable, falsifiable, predictable, and uses what we observe in nature. 

In addition, I asked that someone please explain to me how abiogenesis qualifies as science. Care to answer that?


Quote
NOPE! 2. By putting words in our mouths, stating that we are saying "Evolution didit" are you now admitting that your argument "God didit" is equally as fallacious?? As William Lane Craig once stated, "Two fallacious argument added together do not make a sound argument." Stop pretending that your argument from ignorance is valid while somehow thinking others are not (even though it's a strawman b/c we haven't made that argument).

I am making no such use of countering one fallacious argument with another fallacious argument in order to validate the position I take. I am simply demonstrating that the ‘evolution diddit’ crowd is just as guilty as the so-called ‘Goddit’ crowd. The ToE crowd is chronically filling in the gaps with “we don’t know yet but we’re certain we’ll figure it out someday” type comments. That’s an ‘evolution diddit’ argument and is the same argument us theists get accused of making. I don’t know how you could be honest and deny that.


Quote
3. Evolution DOES NOT deal with the origin of life. It deals with living systems as they are already found in nature. So you are going off into rabbit trails by making these assertions.

Asserting that abiogensis has nothing to do with evolution is one of the more ridiculous assertions that proponents of the ToE claim. It’s like saying the steel industry has no bearing on whether a car can be manufactured or not.


Quote
How did life begin? I DON'T KNOW! And I don't pretend to, like you. That is the difference. When you don't know something (which for some reason you feel you MUST know based in your precommitment to your assumed theology) you just make shit up instead of admitting ignorance.

I assume you are alleging that I am making shit up? I have examined all of the evidence and I think it clearly points to God….and that is not based solely on the discoveries of IDT.


Quote
Where did you get this "thousands of experiments" claim? Have you actually researched these "thousands"? Please post all these thousands of experiments you think have taken place for abiogensis.

I am not going to post links for every experiment having abiogenesis implications. Be a little more reasonable. I don’t even have access to all of them because they are recorded in scientific records that either require a membership or subscription.

If this response does not suffice for you then I will retract my comment and concede that I was not prepared to stand behind it.


Quote
LOL. I love it. You say, "No known pathway" and then a second later claim your alleged known pathway "Godmagic didit". HA! Such hypocrisy doesn't fly in science. Secondly, the human capacity to design things does not tell us anything about living systems.

Argument from ignorance. Stating that human design capacity offers no evidence for design in nature is your opinion and nothing more.

Speaking of hypocrisy, perhaps you can explain why it is okay to teach natural ‘origins of life’ in public schools but not IDT.


Quote
You have yet to demonstrate any teleology behind biological systems (i.e. - any "design", intention, or "specificity"). Specificity requires a mind, and you haven't demonstrated there is specificity in biological systems. It's just a mere assertion of yours (and Dembski and Behe and Johnson and Meyer, etc).

Watch this:




Quote
As a counterexample to one of your claims here though, some human designed things do have the capacity to create. Computer programmers have created programs that can replicate themselves. If inventors invent a machine that can duplicate itself will you claim God didit? I

No, I would not claim that Goddit. However, you make for an interesting illustration here because you are clearly demonstrating that an intelligence is behind the ability of the computer programs to self- replicate. Without having that ‘intelligence” programmed into the programs, there would be no self-replication.


Quote
That's b/c you are hearing what you want to hear instead of what is actually being stated. "There is no possible way..." Wait, I hear the argument from ignorance train-a-comin!! Are gap arguments OK to use? Are they rational? If not, then stop using them. "There's no known pathway. Therefore, magicGod is more plausible" is irrational.

I do not understand this relentless insistence that I am ‘defaulting’ to God based solely on the absence of evidence for another explanation. That is just plain nonsense and projection of a thought process that I am not guilty of using. It doesn’t seem to matter how many times I defend it or how I articulate it, I am still accused of using an ‘x is false, therefore, y is true’ method od deduction.


Quote
Abiogenesis is a field of investigation which houses many competing models and hypotheses (some of which have shown that, at least in principle, the origin of the most basic self replication is possible given the right conditions, i.e. - not logically impossible). ID is NOT like this. It posits one unfalsifiable explanation which has no evidence, experiment, or explanatory power - only a mere assertion of "some intelligence out there must have done it b/c we can't think of any other way it could have happened." As in the Dover trial, ID is not science. It is creationism dressed up and doesn't belong in classrooms.

This is just blatant nonsensical gibberish. You are trivializing the evidence behind IDT in an attempt to do nothing more than discredit it. If you were at least representing it properly a  making an argument against it, you might make some progress with me on this. But, mocking the science and the scientists working on it is hardly the way to go about breaking it down into argumentative points.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6456
  • Darwins +768/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Lets try something different.

Science has a good grasp on genetics. That is not to say that we understand everything, but we understand a lot. And we can use genetics to trace what appears to be the history of existing life forms, and at times we can also include the genetics of now extinct animals, when that information is available. From everything we have discovered, it appears that all life forms evolved from simpler life forms. We have found no other explanation for things being the way they are. And from this evidence, it appears that life has moved from the simple to the complex. A process made possible by the energy introduced into the system by the sun. Otherwise it presumably would indeed violate the second law of thermodynamics and not occur.

And if life started from a simple, abiogenic beginning, everything we see today makes sense, given the evidence we have for life itself. Again, we have only evidence that life began via abiogenesis. We have no proof. It is simply the answer that makes the most sense right now. To science.

There is evidence that life may have come to earth from cosmic debris, which solves little and only adds a layer of complexity to the whole thing. Abiogeneis is still assumed, even under those circumstances. It appears to be possible that life started elsewhere, either in our solar system or in the universe in general. Again, we have no concrete evidence for such things, but certain conditions appear to be right for that possibility as well as earth-bound abiogenesis,

Abiogenesis is assumed, because there is no evidence otherwise. One can speculate all day long about intelligent design, but it provides no explanation for what we observe. If intelligent design was involved, it still looks like a process that might have been natural. And given the total lack of evidence for a supernatural intelligence, the only position science can currently take is that abiogenesis occurred somewhere, and that it was natural. And that it led to us.

There are ideas, or loosely constructed "theories" about abiogenesis, but in fact, all we really have are a bunch of hypothesis, all of which could be wrong. Except we can't find evidence for anything else more likely.

If adherents of ID cannot provide any evidence for their POV, and they can't use accurate science to explain anything, then they need to explain why their alternative way of doing things is superior so that it becomes rational to consider their claims.  They don't seem to be doing that. Yes, claims have been made, but they have not met the standards of science. And apparently cannot. So what ID needs to do is set standards that everyone agrees are rational and meet those standards. Until they can do that, they are not going to make any progress convincing those of us that trust current scientific research and current scientific speculation.

You are trying to argue against something that hasn't been proven by any party. You might as well be claiming that your guess about next years Super Bowl winner is better than ours. And from our point of view, you think that the football team from Cascade Middle School in Eugene, Oregon, is the most likely winner. While we're thinking that Seattle has a good chance, as does San Francisco. And yes, even Denver. But we're pretty sure it won't be a middle school team.

ID needs to go back to the drawing table and find something substantial to argue with. Using bad science doesn't work. Cherry-picking and misinterpretation just aren't quite enough this day and age. Yet that seems to be the best that the ID movement can come up with.

I know that you think ID has more than that, but the inability of ID to impress experts in the field does not bode well for your claims of progress. There would have to be a huge conspiracy promoting ignorance from the most educated people in the world for that to be true, and that doesn't seem likely. You guys need to come up with something whose truth cannot be denied. So far, you haven't come close.

There may indeed by an intelligent designer. I don't think so, but not because "it seems to me" to be unlikely. I am merely trusting the people who are working the hardest, rather than trusting the people who are most interested in things being the way they want them to seem to be. Call me silly, but I prefer trusting folks educated in these matters and using the evidence appropriately over people who try to wring the results they want out of information they wish didn't exist.

Sincerely awaiting your blanket dismissal,

PP
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4933
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
It is not an argument from probability. As I stated earlier, I am not arguing probabilities and I explained why I am claiming that abiogenesis could not have occurred. Stick to the issue instead of trying to create diversions.

 &)
Okay. I am not qualified.

Perhaps YOU can present the ACTUAL probability for its occurrence. This should be interesting.
Whoever said I was qualified?  For that matter, whoever said anyone was qualified to evaluate the probability of abiogenesis?  It would be like trying to calculate the probability of a Powerball lottery win when you didn't know the rules, except much much harder.  So any statement you could make (or grab from someone else) is going to be pretty much based on ignorance.  Which begs the question of why intelligent design advocates keep trying to dismiss abiogenesis as improbable or implausible, both of which you've done in this thread.

Quote from: BibleStudent
Which came first; RNA, DNA, or a protein? This is one of the many insurmountable problems.
Why is it an insurmountable problem?  Why do you consider this such a show-stopper?  If you can't explain why, then it's an opinion and an uninformed one at that.

Quote from: BibleStudent
Is abiogenesis falsifiable? If so, please explain how. Is abiogenesis even based on science or is it mere speculation?
Any good hypothesis is going to be falsifiable, and that includes hypotheses about abiogenesis.  You see, the whole point of making a hypothesis is that you're making a specific (and more to the point, isolated) prediction, which you then proceed to test.  If the prediction proves false, then you revise it and try again.  If it doesn't prove false, you keep testing it to make sure you didn't screw up somewhere.  If it's tested sufficiently enough (by you and other people), then you can consider it 'true', at least unless someone comes along and finds a circumstance where it's false.

Since the generation of amino acids from a pre-biotic 'soup' was demonstrated by Miller and Urey back in 1953, and since verified by other experimenters, I would say that abiogenesis is indeed based on science.

Quote from: BibleStudent
There are no known natural laws of chemistry or physics which could originally direct or determine the ordering of the sequence that amino acids assemble in a protein. Neither do amino acids somehow direct the ordering of sequence. So, how did this occur? There are no known natural laws to explain this phenomenon. Thousands of experiments later and still nothing? 'Evolution diddit.'
I think you either misread what I said or misunderstood it, because I don't see how you get from me talking about how chemical reactions don't require instructions and that you're basing your position on an assumption you can't support to what you said just here.

Do you understand that before life came about, there was no reason why proteins would have formed one way compared to another?  It was only after the first self-replicating life-forms came about that it would have mattered, because those life-forms would have required specific proteins in order to survive and replicate themselves.  That's why the "which came first" question you keep posing simply doesn't matter the way you think it should - because there's no currently reason to assume that life needed DNA to come first, or RNA to come first, or proteins to come first.  Whatever the answer ends up being, it'll be worth knowing, but the lack of knowledge doesn't falsify abiogenesis.  Only knowledge can do that.

Quote from: BibleStudent
The part I bolded is key here. Your own words concede that the designed things you referenced were designed by an intelligence. The simple fact that some things are not complex, specified, or functional is irrelevant. They were still designed. Designed things do not design themselves.
Correct.  But the point is that we need evidence which shows that those things were actually designed, and neither complexity, specificity, nor functionality provide that evidence - because it's possible to design things that are not complex, not specific, and not functional, and because we know of things that are complex, are specific, and are functional that we can show came about due to natural, non-design processes.

Quote from: BibleStudent
Your other examples cite the functionality in one thing, complexity in another, and specific in yet another. Intelligent Design identifies structures and systems that contain all three with no known pathway for the information to have been created.
Do you understand that "no known pathway" does not itself demonstrate design?  Lack of knowledge can never demonstrate anything except for that lack of knowledge.

Quote from: BibleStudent
I wasn’t trying to be amusing.  I am demonstrating that you are not practicing what you are preaching.
Nope, you were playing word games (the purpose is not relevant), and I find word games in a discussion like this to be a total waste of time.  If you have something to say to me, don't try to be cute by modifying my words and then acting like it makes some kind of an argument, because it doesn't and didn't.

I am not trying to argue that abiogenesis is a scientific theory (because it is not; it is a hypothesis and one which we can barely test as yet).  You, however, are trying to argue that intelligent design is a theory, which requires much more in the way of substantiation than a hypothesis.  Yet you have consistently failed to provide any such substantiation; all you've done is present a bad argument by Dembski trying to treat observations as predictions and then acting as if that demonstrates intelligent design.  And to make matters worse, you've also claimed that you don't need to show evidence of an actual designer, as if simply saying "I can't imagine how this could have come about on its own" serves as sufficient evidence of design for anyone else to take it seriously.  And then you act as if I am a hypocrite because I don't claim that abiogenesis is an established scientific theory and thus don't try to hold it up to the same standard as one, unlike you who do make that claim and then fail to meet the standards of a theory.

Quote from: BibleStudent
That is irrelevant. If you can argue that my re-statement of your comments using the substituted words is erroneous, then you are at least offering a refutation.  My modified re-statement of your words is either accurate or it isn’t.
Your modified restatement of my words demonstrated your two-faced attitude in this discussion because you showed that despite your claim that intelligent design is a theory, you are actually trying to equate it to abiogenesis, which is not a theory as yet (indeed, the lack of empirical evidence - but notably, nothing that actively falsifies it - is exactly why it's still hypothetical).  You do not get to have it both ways; if intelligent design is a theory then you have certain standards to meet to show that it is one (such as showing that it's been supported with repeated testing and experimentation).  If it is not a theory, then you shouldn't claim it is.  So which is it?  Are you going to show that intelligent design is a theory, or are you going to stop claiming that it is one?

Quote from: BibleStudent
What you fail to understand is that there is no possible way to ever know what the variables (ie. atmosphere, temperature, the makeup of the pre-biotic soup, etc) were.  A good example of what I am talking about is the Miller-Urey experiment. It was fired upon by many in the scientific community (regardless of worldview) for this very reason and any other similar experiments will likely produce the same level of contentiousness. Trying to find evidence for abiogenesis is not science.
How do you know there's no possible way?  Have you tested every possible combination of variables?  If you haven't (and I am quite sure you haven't), then saying there's "no possible way" is nothing but an argument from ignorance here.  If anything, it shows that you don't really understand how science works despite repeated claims to the contrary.  It's true that we don't know the specifics of the variables, but that's not going to stop scientists from trying to figure them out anyway...and thus, your "no possible way" will end up just being another line drawn in the sand, with about as much effect as you'd expect.

Quote from: BibleStudent
What I am hearing from you is that ‘evolution diddit’…..and an ‘evolution-of-the-gaps’ argument.
Trying to turn "Goddidit" and "God-of-the-gaps" around is pointless, because I'm not arguing that evolution is responsible for the origin of life.  That makes this statement a strawman, and an ignorant one at that.  You need to realize that evolution is not abiogenesis and does not require abiogenesis either, the sooner the better, because it's really tiresome to keep explaining otherwise and have you essentially blow it off because it doesn't suit how you think it should be.

Quote from: BibleStudent
IDT does make predictions, it can be tested, it can be falsified, and it studies nature. It is apparent that no amount of evidence to the contrary will convince you of this. The problem is, you see it as a threat to your personal worldview and you will protect that worldview even if it means being willfully dishonest.
It doesn't make predictions - save a single vague one, that there is a designer - it effectively can't be falsified because it presents no way to find the presumed designer, and while it does study nature, it does so solely to try to pick holes in evolutionary theory.  As for the rest of this, haven't you realized yet that I don't find intelligent design threatening in the slightest way?  I've never declared that intelligent design is impossible, the way you've done with abiogenesis.  I've never declared that there's no possible way there could be a designer, the way you've done with abiogenesis.  It wouldn't particularly bother me if we did find actual evidence of an intelligent designer, although I would then expect scientists to try to figure out what they could about it.  What bothers me is the way you and your ilk repeatedly try to turn this discussion into one about religious belief/faith - as you've done several times in this thread alone - so that you can pretend that evolutionary theory is some kind of religious belief that you can choose to believe in or not.  That's the willful dishonesty here, whether you're willing to admit it or not, and trying to turn it around so you can pretend that people who don't buy into your intelligent design beliefs are the ones who are biased, who are willfully dishonest, who have to have it their way or no way, when in fact you're projecting your own attitudes onto everyone else.

Quote from: BibleStudent
When you can adequately explain how the application of science as respects abiogenesis differs from IDT then you might have a leg to stand on. Your LUCA and your 'first living organism' are as elusive as the God you demand ID to produce.
It's true, we don't have enough information to pick out either of those.  We may never have enough.  But at least scientists are honestly trying to find that information, unlike you and your ilk, who are perfectly content to believe that a god is the "intelligent designer" and don't see the point in looking for evidence to support that belief, except to look for generic "evidence of design", despite the fact that your criteria for design is sorely lacking in an ability to pick out what's designed and what isn't.  In fact, your primary basis for whether it's designed or not is whether it looks designed, which gives no effective way to eliminate false positives and false negatives.  Your other criteria - functionality, complexity, and specificity - don't do that either.  They're just ways to validate things that you already think are designed; whether something is functional enough, complex enough, and specific enough is purely subjective and not something you can effectively quantify.

Quote from: BibleStudent
Oh. So you had a valid reason for making use of the word “disproven.” Got it.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic here.  You've poisoned the well pretty thoroughly with this misbegotten post of yours.

Quote from: BibleStudent
You must have missed the part about how current molecular evidence suggests that the TTSS evolved from the flagellum.
If you have evidence which shows this, then present it already!  This shouldn't be rocket science - if you have access to evidence, present it so that other people can evaluate it.  That's the whole purpose of science.  Don't just say something and then leave it to other people to look it up for you - that's just lazy.

That being said, I did look it up, and oddly enough, I found one paper which described the secretory system as having evolved from the flagellum, and another which describes them as having evolved from a common ancestor.  In fact, the evidence suggests that they're related, and these are two hypotheses formulated as attempts to explain how; Miller's is a third, of course, and hasn't been shown to be false either.

More to the point, regardless of which one ends up being correct, they all falsify the idea of the flagellum being irreducibly complex.  Whether the secretory system came first, last, or simply diverged, its mere existence amply shows that you don't need all of the proteins that go into the flagellum in order to have a working biological system, and thus it cannot be irreducibly complex as argued by ID advocates.

Quote from: BibleStudent
Well, then I guess either you can refute the molecular evidence or you can provide evidence of a pathway that explains the emergence of complexity from simplicity. If you can do neither then you weren’t impressed because you didn’t understand what you were reading.
I wasn't impressed because your arguments were pretty much the typical ID arguments I've unfortunately come to expect from the ID movement.  Little surprise, considering that its goal is not to promote actual science but to try to shoehorn a religious belief into it.  As evidenced by you, claiming without evidence that your god is the "intelligent designer".

I am less impressed by this post than I was by your last one.  But that's mainly because you demonstrated just how low you're willing to stoop in order to defend your belief.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12275
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Quote from: BibleStudent
Which came first; RNA, DNA, or a protein? This is one of the many insurmountable problems.
Why is it an insurmountable problem?  Why do you consider this such a show-stopper?  If you can't explain why, then it's an opinion and an uninformed one at that.

Most likely because he believes that RNA can only possibly come from coding by DNA.

In fact, your primary basis for whether it's designed or not is whether it looks designed ...

A quick correction, as this isn't strictly true.  His primary basis for determining whether something is designed, is whether it exists.  I asked him earlier what an undesigned natural world would look like.  He responded thus:

Quote
What would an undesigned nature look like, by comparison?
An undesigned nature is inconceivable to me. ...

BS doesn't believe in undesigned things.  Everything in the universe is designed, to him.  So the criteria he uses to determine "design" from "undesign" are not being applied as genuine standards.  They're just for show.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2014, 01:34:03 AM by Azdgari »
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.