PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Unorganized chemicals

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Some posters have questioned how "unorganized chemicals" could self organize into life and why organic chemists can't replicate this process in a lab. Here's an article that addresses how complex molecules could have formed from simpler, unorganized chemicals.  From here:
SimpleToComplex
"A major mystery about the origins of life has been resolved. According to a study published in the journal Nature, two Université de Montréal scientists have proposed a new theory for how a universal molecular machine, the ribosome, managed to self-assemble as a critical step in the genesis of all life on Earth.
"While the ribosome is a complex structure it features a clear hierarchy that emerged based on basic chemical principles," says Sergey Steinberg, a Université de Montréal biochemistry professor who made his discovery with student Konstantin Bokov. "In the absence of such explanations, some people could imagine unseen forces at work when such complex structures emerge in nature."

What we see is that scientists are slowly but surely answering the questions of how life arose.  We are finding out how simple chemicals become complex molecular machines.
The natural world is all that's needed, no magic or intelligent designer required.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:55 PM on April 24, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon - very good.  Also from the article:

The key breakthrough came when he realized that the ribosome is organized by a set of simple structural rules and that it had to be assembled from basic building blocks in a very specific order; otherwise it would have fallen apart. He then showed with mathematical rigor that the construction of the ribosome likely followed an ordered series of steps to form the structure found in the first living cell. To this day, that structure exists almost unchanged in our own cells.

Chemists have been able to observe many examples of self-organizing behavior with simple molecules, yet explaining the complex self-assembly of biomolecules had not been so obvious.


Researchers have actually come a long way since 1953 (the year of the famous Miller-Urey experiment) in understanding how life could have originated here on earth.  Such research as the one just described demonstrate this.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:32 AM on April 25, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yeah, I thought it was an interesting article.  It pertained to what we were talking about in another post.  The point is this is incredibly complicated stuff and it takes time, effort and tons of testing to understand it.  But we are begining to understand it, we are making progress.  And even though we haven't figured it all out yet, it looks like we will figure it out and soon.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:08 AM on April 25, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Of course the point really should be that despite all this 'could have', 'might have', according to people that are busy guessing, and according to mathematical models that are only as good as their creators preconceptions -there is also the enormous possibility that intelligence was required for the origin of life.
Why will naturalists not accept that the possibility of intelligent design is the obvious alternative in the question of how life originated? Why do naturalists fight against that possibility tooth and claw? Why do they redefine science in an attempt to relegate intelligent design to pseudo-science when it so obviously an alternative possible explanation? In what other realm of science is the conclusion that life arose spontaneously accepted uncritically, prior to any explanation of how?

They do this because they are running from their creator without having any idea of why they do it. It is called 'wilful blindness' and apparently it is 'no excuse' for not seeing what is obvious to so many.


A major mystery about the origins of life has been resolved.


How do they say 'has been resolved' when they follow it with such utterings as 'might have, could have'. I see this sort of thing all the time in the writings of evolutionists and their fellow evolutionists apparently don't notice the qualifications nor find it significant.

The fact is they have decided non-evidentially that life had to have arisen by natural means and now all they have to do is find out how.Is that science???


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:46 AM on April 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Of course the point really should be that despite all this 'could have', 'might have', according to people that are busy guessing, and according to mathematical models that are only as good as their creators preconceptions -there is also the enormous possibility that intelligence was required for the origin of life.
Says the guy who claims that fire is alive.

Your "explanation" for the origin of life is a non-explanation.

What makes you say that it's a possibility (let alone "enormous")?

Nah, don't answer here. Start a thread. One that addresses claws, sharp teeth, hollow fangs carrying venom, armors, hunting strategies, electric shocks, spines, horns, thorns, mind controlling chemicals, etc.

Why will naturalists not accept that the possibility of intelligent design is the obvious alternative in the question of how life originated?
Because it's not. It's silly and explains nothing.
Why do naturalists fight against that possibility tooth and claw?
Explain tooth and claw, and then you can name them.
Speaking of teeth, do you fight the possibility of there being a tooth fairy?
Why do they redefine science in an attempt to relegate intelligent design to pseudo-science
We don't. You try to redefine reality to make it fit a bronze age text, and reality refuses to adapt.
when it so obviously an alternative possible explanation?
Obviously only living things reproduce, right?

You should ban "obviously" from your vocabulary.

In what other realm of science is the conclusion that life arose spontaneously accepted uncritically, prior to any explanation of how?
Depends on your explanation of "spontaneously".

It wasn't "spontaneous" in mine. But i can change it tomorrow.
You get lost in words.

They do this because they are running from their creator without having any idea of why they do it.
You're running from the tooth fairy. And from the glorious Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Don't be dishonest. Don't talk about intelligent design. It's Yahweh the one that you want to be the creator. And you want it to be the way the Bible says he was.

It was not possible. So you're left with no reasons to keep fighting against science.

Talking about Intelligent Design is hypocrisy. Because if we conclude that aliens came and planted life, you wouldn't be pleased at all.

If it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you still wouldn't be pleased at all.

It is called 'wilful blindness' and apparently it is 'no excuse' for not seeing what is obvious to so many.
So many ignorant people and religious fundamentalists. Predominantly in the USA.

You can easily map religious beliefs (tendencies) in the world.

Imagine such mapping in scientific models. And people killing each other over them.

The fact is they have decided non-evidentially that life had to have arisen by natural means and now all they have to do is find out how.Is that science???
Lesteeer! =D
Claws, sharp teeth, hollow fangs carrying venom, armors, hunting strategies, electric shocks, spines, horns, thorns, mind controlling chemicals...
Address them (in another thread) or surrender.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:00 AM on April 25, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

there is also the enormous possibility that intelligence was required for the origin of life.

What makes you say that it's a possibility (let alone "enormous")?


What makes you so sure it’s not?

. Start a thread. One that addresses claws, sharp teeth, hollow fangs carrying venom, armors, hunting strategies, electric shocks, spines, horns, thorns, mind controlling chemicals, etc.


Self protection? Survival –as in hunting for food to eat? Everything needs to eat?


Why will naturalists not accept that the possibility of intelligent design is the obvious alternative in the question of how life originated?

Because it's not. It's silly and explains nothing.


In your opinion…

Speaking of teeth, do you fight the possibility of there being a tooth fairy?


Having played the part of the tooth fairy, I know without a doubt that without me there would have been no money. If you are in doubt and it will make you feel any better, I am the tooth fairy.

Don't be dishonest. Don't talk about intelligent design. It's Yahweh the one that you want to be the creator.


Well Yahweh is intelligent design and a lot of intelligent design proponents believe that Yahweh is the intelligent designer but ‘science’ cannot tell you who the intelligent designer is, just that there is one. By the way, a lot of intelligent design proponents don’t accept Yahweh as the creator but they do accept that a creator is required for life. As for you, you only run from Yahweh. I don’t think you would mind the Flying Spaghetti Monster at all. But just in case the flying spaghetti monster is not an option, you deny any possibility of intelligent design just for fear of Yahweh.  

And you want it to be the way the Bible says he was.


And you want to make it all up for yourself. Human wisdom, what a thing. Isn’t that called idolatry when you make God into your own image of who he should be? Or delete him altogether?

It was not possible. So you're left with no reasons to keep fighting against science.


Who’s fighting against science? We all use the same evidence, we just interpret that evidence differently according to our worldview. Evolutionists have a hard time acknowledging that though.

Talking about Intelligent Design is hypocrisy. Because if we conclude that aliens came and planted life, you wouldn't be pleased at all.

If it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you still wouldn't be pleased at all.


It really doesn’t matter what pleases me. What is the truth is all that matters.Who God is cannot be answered by science. You’ll need to head over to theology to answer that question once you overcome your prejudice and realize that life may have been created.
Of course what doesn’t please you is, specifically, Yahweh.

So many ignorant people and religious fundamentalists. Predominantly in the USA.


So many ignorant people in every corner of the globe and a lot of those people are evolutionists led by the nose by the media who are influenced by those scientists that are specifically evolutionists. It is the favoured religion after all.
Just because a person believes there is a creator does not make him ignorant and superstitious. It makes him realistic. Just because an ignorant person believes that evolution is true does not make him intelligent, it only makes him a product of brainwashing by a prevalent and preferred philosophy. You have convenient labels that mean precisely nothing.

Imagine such mapping in scientific models. And people killing each other over them.


I presume here you are making reference to people killing in the name of religion. What about those atheist dictators that kill all the religious people that offend them? They do that because they believe in survival of the fittest and evolution gives them ‘scientific’ justification. The millions killed in this century alone by atheist dictators by far exceeds those killed for other religious reasons. It’s amazing how many times Darwin comes up in their memoirs.
The Bible seems to indicate that we're all pretty jaded no matter how we pride ourselves on certain aspects of our behaviour.
It's either that or natural selection that drives our worse tendencies to eliminate our enemies. I know which one I think it is.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:59 AM on April 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Start a thread. Don't ruin Demon's.

By the way, very interesting, Demon!


(Edited by wisp 4/25/2009 at 10:14 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:13 AM on April 25, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:46 AM on April 25, 2009 :
Of course the point really should be that despite all this 'could have', 'might have', according to people that are busy guessing, and according to mathematical models that are only as good as their creators preconceptions -


So, creatinist John Baumgardner's pro-YEC models are not good then?

there is also the enormous possibility that intelligence was required for the origin of life.

Why is this enormous?

How was the enormity calculated?

Can you present anything more than assertionsZ?

Why do they redefine science in an attempt to relegate intelligent design to pseudo-science when it so obviously an alternative possible explanation?


ID IS a pseudoscience.  It has nothing to do with definitions.  ID 'scientists' have done even less than creation scientsts.  

Please tell us what about ID makes it science.

My bet is you can't.


In what other realm of science is the conclusion that life arose spontaneously accepted uncritically, prior to any explanation of how?


So, is positoing "an intelliogence musta did it" really an "explanation"?


They do this because they are running from their creator without having any idea of why they do it.

Yes, that must be it....

But wait - what creator are you talking about?  The ID crowd claims that ID is not a religious issue.
Are you indicating that this is a lie?




It is called 'wilful blindness' and apparently it is 'no excuse' for not seeing what is obvious to so many.

And it is obvious to many that ghosts are real, bigfoot exists, David Blain really can levitate, etc...


A major mystery about the origins of life has been resolved.


How do they say 'has been resolved' when they follow it with such utterings as 'might have, could have'. I see this sort of thing all the time in the writings of evolutionists and their fellow evolutionists apparently don't notice the qualifications nor find it significant.

Science is by its nature tentative.  I know that IDcreationists apparently like the reassuring certainty that accompanies the proclamations of thier heroes, but the problem is that if they are wrong, they are COMPLETELY wrong.  And of course, the street-level creto is too unsophisticated to realize or allow this.

The fact is they have decided non-evidentially that life had to have arisen by natural means and now all they have to do is find out how.

As there is not reason to 'believe' otherwise, why not?

Is that science???

Yes, since these folks are actually doing research and testing hypotheses, while the IDcreationists do nothing but sit on thesidelines playing Monday morning quaretback and throwing stones.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:53 PM on April 25, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Of course the point really should be that despite all this 'could have', 'might have',

Wrong.  The point is creationists claim there's no way for "unorganized chemicals" to become more complex and then when they're shown how this happens, they ignore it and change the subject, like lester is doing now.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:47 PM on April 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Exactly!

It's pretty much like:
-Can't be.
-Yes, can. Look.
-Despite that...

No despite, Lester.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:26 PM on April 25, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So, creatinist John Baumgardner's pro-YEC models are not good then?


Not necessarily, it all depends on what his preconceptions are and whether they are more or less in line with reality in comparison to the preconceptions of the naturalists.
Of course for you, the answer to the question is obvious but that is your bias, everybody has one.

Why is this enormous?


How do proteins self-organize without their instructions? Where did the instructions come from? It’s all very theoretical that DNA came about by chance and random chemical attraction. Too many people in the genetics field say that it is ‘not by chance’ and has nothing to do with natural attraction and chemical bonding. Since there is no evidence to suggest that DNA self-assembled into a code that translates into specifically shaped proteins that work together with other specifically shaped proteins that just happen to interact three dimensionally, there is nothing ‘scientific’ about your assumptions that they did. So why should we allow for your assumptions over mine in the absence of evidence?

Can you present anything more than assertionsZ?


Can you?

ID IS a pseudoscience.  It has nothing to do with definitions.  


It has everything to do with the revised definition of ‘science’ that allows for only ‘natural explanations’ which presupposes that only natural explanations are responsible. By defining supernatural/intelligent causes out of the equation, evolutionists then define ID as pseudoscience because it is not a ‘natural explanation.’ It is all very disingenuous.

ID 'scientists' have done even less than creation scientsts.  


You are assuming that ID scientists exist outside of ‘science’ but they live and work along with evolutionists in laboratories and in many cases you do not know who they are. It is your assumption that they are random hicks in the public and outside of science that is leading you astray.

Please tell us what about ID makes it science.


Life was either created or it evolved. You cannot arbitrarily assume one or the other. It is a philosophical bias and thus not objective.

So, is positoing "an intelliogence musta did it" really an "explanation"?


It is if you look at DNA and protein assembly objectively and don’t randomly throw out one obvious possibility.

But wait - what creator are you talking about?  The ID crowd claims that ID is not a religious issue.


It does not matter what creator I am personally talking about. That cannot be determined by science. Nor can the lack of necessity for a creator be randomly decided upon by naturalists.
They are right, it is not a religious issue to determine whether an intelligence was required. It is a practical issue. The argument is purely one worldview versus another using the scientific data common to both.

Please tell us what about ID makes it science.


Science should be a search for truth not forceful dogmatic insistence that naturalistic causes are the only explanation (and the imaginative scenarios that stem from it) in the absence of confirmation of the original premise. It is a bit like saying ‘my house built itself’ and having decided that that is true, we sit around and imagine how that happened until we convince ourselves that it happened this way or that. Pointless enterprise.

.  I know that IDcreationists apparently like the reassuring certainty that accompanies the proclamations of thier heroes, but the problem is that if they are wrong, they are COMPLETELY wrong.  


In your humble but biased opinion.

And of course, the street-level creto is too unsophisticated to realize or allow this.


And what about the non-street level creationist?
And what about the unsophisticated brainwashed street level evo –what is more intelligent about them? Only that they believe people like you without any discriminatory ability whatsoever. For that you allocate them an imaginary intelligence based on your own prejudice.

As there is not reason to 'believe' otherwise, why not?


Remember this is your worldview bias –it is not ‘scientifically’ conceived, it is pure philosophical bias.

Yes, since these folks are actually doing research and testing hypotheses, while the IDcreationists do nothing but sit on thesidelines playing Monday morning quaretback and throwing stones.


Again, this is the evo garbage that you have believed because you want to. Reality check – many creationists and ID proponents are scientists inside labs doing research and testing hypotheses. It’s like having a Christian in the Soviet Union. Very dangerous and politically incorrect. Those are the people that are truelly searching for the truth rather than uncritically accepting the Darwin partyline. There is nothing financially rewarding about being anti-establishment but some people prefer the truth. Having been part of the Darwin party, I can truelly say that I am not being rude to you, I understand the blindness that accompanies evolutionary belief –I have been there and my life was a whole lot easier when I tagged the line. When you get to the point that you accept your own philosophical bias and the fact that it is purely philosophical, you may start to awaken to reality.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.    






-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 01:38 AM on April 26, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It’s all very theoretical that DNA came about by chance and random chemical attraction. Too many people in the genetics field say that it is ‘not by chance’
Yeah... Too many... Like EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM!

It does not matter what creator I am personally talking about.
How convenient! Leave it blurry enough so that it can't be disproved.
That cannot be determined by science.
"That" what? What creator you're talking about? Certainly.
Nor can the lack of necessity for a creator be randomly decided upon by naturalists.
There's a slight chance that a creator made life. Pretty slim.

The chances that it was Yahweh, zero. None.

And no, i don't fear Yahweh, nor any other fictional character.

Life was either created or it evolved.
Or both.

Checkmate.


(Edited by wisp 4/26/2009 at 02:16 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 02:16 AM on April 26, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not necessarily, it all depends on what his preconceptions are and whether they are more or less in line with reality in comparison to the preconceptions of the naturalists.
Of course for you, the answer to the question is obvious but that is your bias, everybody has one.


Wait, are you admitting that creationism works on "preconceptions" and then works on from there.. So you're basically admitting that it isn't scientific and apparently"reality" is whatever creationists decide it is.

Unlike creationism though, science "follows" the evidence, and once more, gravitational theory shows us that, the evidence leads somewhere else, so science follows. Of course let us not forget that it was early Christians that developed the scientific method because they fault the bible didn't explain the world correctly, and that before that, the world was already bible thumping (or Europe at least)..

I'd like you to support your claim, otherwise they're just wishful thinking.

How do proteins self-organize without their instructions? Where did the instructions come from? It’s all very theoretical that DNA came about by chance and random chemical attraction. Too many people in the genetics field say that it is ‘not by chance’ and has nothing to do with natural attraction and chemical bonding. Since there is no evidence to suggest that DNA self-assembled into a code that translates into specifically shaped proteins that work together with other specifically shaped proteins that just happen to interact three dimensionally, there is nothing ‘scientific’ about your assumptions that they did. So why should we allow for your assumptions over mine in the absence of evidence?


You keep moving the goal posts.. You go from proteins self organizing to DNA self organizing but if you look at the thread, we're talking about "chemicals", which is also one of your claims.

It's very simple, and I'll explain it to you in steps.

Chemicals have affinities, atoms, molecules, bonding of chemicals for instance doesn't happen by chance, but happen based on environment.. That is why, in laboratories, chemists can do a lot with chemicals by changing the environment (PH, salt levels, etc).

It is not an assumption, it is a "fact" that chemicals bond and organize themselves in specific patterns under specific conditions. Snow flakes are a good and simple evidence for this.

Now we've already explained that evolution doesn't depend on it being "alive" per se, Viruses aren't alive but they mutate as well. And you need to keep that in mind when you move further.

So the only problem you need to face, isn't DNA or RNA that replicates, that could evolve eventually. No, you need to get something that replicates itself and can have an error in that replication, chemicals can do this, but "how" exactly is the question.

Can you?


Why yes we can, and we've got thousands of peer reviewed scientific articles to support us, how many do you have ?


It has everything to do with the revised definition of ‘science’ that allows for only ‘natural explanations’ which presupposes that only natural explanations are responsible. By defining supernatural/intelligent causes out of the equation, evolutionists then define ID as pseudoscience because it is not a ‘natural explanation.’ It is all very disingenuous.


So where are the peer reviewed scientific articles explaining the "method" of ID, where are the articles explaining how it can be "tested", how it is possibly "refutable" and makes "predictions". These are principles that have been part of science since the start of science really, ID has provided none of those, creationism has provided a few, but then simply failed all of them.

You are assuming that ID scientists exist outside of ‘science’ but they live and work along with evolutionists in laboratories and in many cases you do not know who they are. It is your assumption that they are random hicks in the public and outside of science that is leading you astray.


I actually know some IDists, but you know whats really funny? The fact that the scientists that I know, that have an interest in ID, also accept evolutionary theory, their starting point isn't "It is unexplainable". Their starting point is "Evolution is doing right, but the mechanisms of ID can even contribute to evolution, like how Irreducible complexity is a trait found in evolution that lead to new thinking on how things could have evolved. They aren't like the IDiots over at the discovery institute, and thats the difference.


Life was either created or it evolved. You cannot arbitrarily assume one or the other. It is a philosophical bias and thus not objective.


Avoiding the question, please try again, what makes ID science ?

It is if you look at DNA and protein assembly objectively and don’t randomly throw out one obvious possibility.


You're the one throwing out possibilities, do you remember "the eye", which was irreducibly complex ?.. Oh it turned out to not be irreducibly complex.. Who figured that out? Real scientists, not IDists, IDists were busy sitting around and patting themselves on the back.

You're a hypocrite if you think this applies to scientists and not IDists when in reality its the other way around and the history of ID has shown that.

It does not matter what creator I am personally talking about. That cannot be determined by science. Nor can the lack of necessity for a creator be randomly decided upon by naturalists.
They are right, it is not a religious issue to determine whether an intelligence was required. It is a practical issue. The argument is purely one worldview versus another using the scientific data common to both.


You didn't answer his question, and your post saying:
"
They do this because they are running from their creator without having any idea of why they do it."

Definitely implies a religious bias right there, I bet you are Christian, because it's a typical thing that Christians would bring out, you are running away from god, now you're going to hell... Don't run away from your CREATOR.

Am I right? When did it stop being about "science" and start being about "running away from your creator"?

And what about the non-street level creationist?
And what about the unsophisticated brainwashed street level evo –what is more intelligent about them? Only that they believe people like you without any discriminatory ability whatsoever. For that you allocate them an imaginary intelligence based on your own prejudice.


There's one big difference that "creationists" always run away from, why are you running away from it?

That is that anyone can actually double check any claims that evolutionists make, any test can be redone and the outcome can be checked because there are no magical elements which are "assumed" without tests, there are no conclusions which are accepted without support.. The streetlevel evolutionist can double check every claim with peer reviewed science.. A creationist or IDist has no peer reviewed science to pull back to.


Again, this is the evo garbage that you have believed because you want to. Reality check – many creationists and ID proponents are scientists inside labs doing research and testing hypotheses. It’s like having a Christian in the Soviet Union. Very dangerous and politically incorrect. Those are the people that are truelly searching for the truth rather than uncritically accepting the Darwin partyline. There is nothing financially rewarding about being anti-establishment but some people prefer the truth. Having been part of the Darwin party, I can truelly say that I am not being rude to you, I understand the blindness that accompanies evolutionary belief –I have been there and my life was a whole lot easier when I tagged the line. When you get to the point that you accept your own philosophical bias and the fact that it is purely philosophical, you may start to awaken to reality.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.    


It is ironic that you can say something like this, you're the one blinded when creationism and IDism both have nothing to show.. They don't have peer reviewed science and are actually playing a political game to get their "ideas" in the science classroom.

You are so unbelievably blind that you apparently don't see the contradiction in your claim.. Again, here are the points:

1.ID and CS need peer reviewed scientific literature.

Thats it, thats all there is, they have none because their ideas don't explain the facts (observations) and evidence (results of tests) correctly. Come back when you have something to show for it that isn't stupidifically easy to break down.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 02:28 AM on April 26, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I see Lester still can't address the topic of this post.  He uses typical creationist tactics and avoids specific evidence and moves the goal posts when he can't handle the facts.  Creationists claim that "unorganized chemicals" can't become more complex.  This research shows us that that claim is wrong.  Lester hasn't talked about the research ONCE.  What's the matter, don't understand it?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:54 AM on April 26, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

deamon
What we see is that scientists are slowly but surely answering the questions of how life arose.  We are finding out how simple chemicals become complex molecular machines.
The natural world is all that's needed, no magic or intelligent designer required.


Despite what all of you evos have to say about Lester's supposed avoidance of the topic of this thread, you may want to note this summary statement by deamon.

Lester is not addressing the claims posited in the article because they are vague and misleading. Lester is (correctly in my opinion) addressing the foundational principals that make a vague and non specific article so appealing to the evo mindset.

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 09:29 AM on April 26, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 09:29 AM on April 26, 2009 :
deamon
What we see is that scientists are slowly but surely answering the questions of how life arose.  We are finding out how simple chemicals become complex molecular machines.
The natural world is all that's needed, no magic or intelligent designer required.


Despite what all of you evos have to say about Lester's supposed avoidance of the topic of this thread, you may want to note this summary statement by deamon.

Lester is not addressing the claims posited in the article because they are vague and misleading. Lester is (correctly in my opinion) addressing the foundational principals that make a vague and non specific article so appealing to the evo mindset.



Oh really, please show us where the theory of evolution is vague.. And we're talking "scientifically" here. Please, no lay mans terms in this one.

 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 09:52 AM on April 26, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Despite what all of you evos have to say about Lester's supposed avoidance of the topic of this thread, you may want to note this summary statement by deamon.

Lester is not addressing the claims posited in the article because they are vague and misleading.
Why? What makes it vague? Why is it misleading?

Did Lester tell you that's his reason?

You seem to find more intelligence in Lester's actions than i do. Perhaps you're right, but if you posted creationist articles we would address them even if they're vague.

Lester is (correctly in my opinion) addressing the foundational principals that make a vague and non specific article so appealing to the evo mindset.
Well, the "foundational principles" is exactly what vagueness is about.

I think we're all about specifics.
We ask, for instance, which specific step in our evolutionary story seems impossible to you, and you answer "bacteria to man". Billions of years worth of vagueness.

I don't see a chance for using the word "despite" here.

I really see this:
-Can't be.
-Can! Look!
-Despite the fact that "may"...

Well, "may" is a whole lot better that "can't", and Lester won't admit it.

If you leave your house locked up, and when you come back you open the lock and everything inside is a mess and the valuables are missing... Even if i don't see how the burglar came in, i won't assume something supernatural.

Yeah, there's a slight chance, but so slight that it's not worth considering.

And if tomorrow i find a way in which the burglar could get in from a window, get out and leave it locked, yeah, i won't be sure that's how he did it, but it instantly becomes a hundred million times (more actually) more likely than a supernatural explanation.

I'm not trying to be offensive here. But this is exactly how i see it.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:52 AM on April 26, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Timbrx -
Lester is not addressing the claims posited in the article because they are vague and misleading. Lester is (correctly in my opinion) addressing the foundational principals that make a vague and non specific article so appealing to the evo mindset.


Timbrx and Lester - I would like to see some specific evidence to back up your claims.  All we hear from either of you is assertions.  You never seem to present any evidence to back up what you say.

Lester talks about the improbability of a specific set of proteins arising through pure chance.  The flawed assumption here is that there is only 'one' set of proteins that will work for any given biological function.  

Remember this article that I presented in a different thread?  

Scientists evolve new protein from scratch

This experiment demonstrated several things:
1.  It demonstrates that there is more than one protein that can accomplish a given function - in this case, binding to ATP.  Note that the researchers started with an absolutely random amino acid sequence and 'evolved' it to the desired function - binding with ATP.

2.  It demonstrated very nicely the process of mutations and selection.  

3.  It also shows how the evolutionary process of mutation and selection could be used to one day develop new protein catalysts for medical and biotechnological uses.

I can think of one example where nature already gives us an example of this - nylon digesting bacteria.

So until you can back up your statements with evidence and details, you're just spouting hot air.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:02 PM on April 26, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

orion
Lester talks about the improbability of a specific set of proteins arising through pure chance.  The flawed assumption here is that there is only 'one' set of proteins that will work for any given biological function.
And "pure chance".



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 3:22 PM on April 26, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, thank you wisp, and the flawed assumption of pure chance.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 5:03 PM on April 26, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester is not addressing the claims posited in the article because they are vague and misleading.

Want to explain how they are vague or misleading or are you just going to make an unsupported statement and hope everyone believes it...

Lester is (correctly in my opinion) addressing the foundational principals that make a vague and non specific article so appealing to the evo mindset.

And it's funny how neither lester or you  can address the specifics of the article.  From the artilce:

"The key breakthrough came when he realized that the ribosome is organized by a set of simple structural rules and that it had to be assembled from basic building blocks in a very specific order; otherwise it would have fallen apart. He then showed with mathematical rigor that the construction of the ribosome likely followed an ordered series of steps to form the structure found in the first living cell. To this day, that structure exists almost unchanged in our own cells.

Chemists have been able to observe many examples of self-organizing behavior with simple molecules, yet explaining the complex self-assembly of biomolecules had not been so obvious."

Now where does lester address how ribosomes can form?  Where does lester show us how chemicals can self organize is wrong?  Where does lester supprt any ridiculoous claim he makes?  As I said, typical creationist tactics, ignore the evidence presented and go off on a tangent.  Oh, and have nothing to back up their rants.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:21 PM on April 26, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:38 AM on April 26, 2009 :
It does not matter what creator I am personally talking about. That cannot be determined by science. Nor can the lack of necessity for a creator be randomly decided upon by naturalists.
They are right, it is not a religious issue to determine whether an intelligence was required. It is a practical issue. The argument is purely one worldview versus another using the scientific data common to both.


Is there any data that if it were found, would change your worldview?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:50 PM on April 26, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Zucadragon, I said that the ARTICLE deamon posted was vague.

BTW, glad to see your settled in!

wisp
Why? What makes it vague? Why is it misleading?


"A major mystery about the origins of life has been resolved.
Misleading. A "major mystery MAY have been resolved in the mind of the author.

According to a study published in the journal Nature, two Université de Montréal scientists have proposed a new theory for how a universal molecular machine, the ribosome, managed to self-assemble as a critical step in the genesis of all life on Earth.
"New theory" - vague. "Critical step..." presupposes abiogenisis. Misleading.

"While the ribosome is a complex structure it features a clear hierarchy that emerged based on basic chemical principles," says Sergey Steinberg, a Université de Montréal biochemistry professor who made his discovery with student Konstantin Bokov.
Misleading supposition. Why would a complex chemical structure NOT folow basic chemical principles? after all, it is made of basic chemicals.

"In the absence of such explanations, some people could imagine unseen forces at work when such complex structures emerge in nature."
Misleading. Even in the presence of "such explanations" some people could imagine unseen forces at work.

Yes, deamon, I read the whole article and found it to be much of the same. Perhaps you can find a link to the technical paper so that the author can explain his findings rather than a reporter.

 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 08:29 AM on April 27, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"A major mystery about the origins of life has been resolved.
Misleading. A "major mystery MAY have been resolved in the mind of the author.


No, we see how ribosomes can self assemble, period.  Life on earth requires ribosomes, now we can see how ribosomes could have arisen without magic.  
A major mystery of how ribosomes can self assemble has been solved.  If you doubt the author, lookup his research and disprove it.

According to a study published in the journal Nature, two Université de Montréal scientists have proposed a new theory for how a universal molecular machine, the ribosome, managed to self-assemble as a critical step in the genesis of all life on Earth.
"New theory" - vague. "Critical step..." presupposes abiogenisis. Misleading.


Nonsense.  Abiogenesis is the automatic assumption for how life started on earth.  No organic chemist bvelieves God magically poofed life into existance.  Abiogenesis is the hypothesis, this experiment supports that hypothesis.  Nothing vague about it.

"While the ribosome is a complex structure it features a clear hierarchy that emerged based on basic chemical principles," says Sergey Steinberg, a Université de Montréal biochemistry professor who made his discovery with student Konstantin Bokov.
Misleading supposition. Why would a complex chemical structure NOT folow basic chemical principles? after all, it is made of basic chemicals.


And yet, creationistsz like gluteus_maximus
seem to think "unorganized chemicals" can't self assemble into more complex forms by following "basic chemical principles".  This shows that he and other creationists like him are wrong.

"In the absence of such explanations, some people could imagine unseen forces at work when such complex structures emerge in nature."
Misleading. Even in the presence of "such explanations" some people could imagine unseen forces at work.


Again,. not misleading at all.  People who don't understand chemistry and biology can certainly imagine unseen forces at work, that's just what creationists do.  Yet when asked to support these "unseen forces" as an explaination, they can't.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 09:48 AM on April 27, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

timbrx
wisp:
Why? What makes it vague? Why is it misleading?
"A major mystery about the origins of life has been resolved.
Misleading. A "major mystery MAY have been resolved in the mind of the author.
Why is it misleading? Where can that phrase lead you?
To the concept that a major mystery HAS been resolved in the mind of the author?

According to a study published in the journal Nature, two Université de Montréal scientists have proposed a new theory for how a universal molecular machine, the ribosome, managed to self-assemble as a critical step in the genesis of all life on Earth.
"New theory" - vague.
Why? Because they didn't say "hypothesis"?
I'm trying to understand what you mean.

"Critical step..." presupposes abiogenisis. Misleading.
Again, misleading means that it leads you to something wrong. There's nothing wrong with abiogenesis.
Yes indeed, it does presuppose abiogenesis.

Did you read my burglar analogy?

"While the ribosome is a complex structure it features a clear hierarchy that emerged based on basic chemical principles," says Sergey Steinberg, a Université de Montréal biochemistry professor who made his discovery with student Konstantin Bokov.
Misleading supposition. Why would a complex chemical structure NOT folow basic chemical principles? after all, it is made of basic chemicals.
It's not misleading, but you might have a point if you changed "misleading" for "superfluous".

But i believe that they meant it to make a distinction with "complex chemical principles".
Does it sound reasonable now?

"In the absence of such explanations, some people could imagine unseen forces at work when such complex structures emerge in nature."
Misleading.
Because it can lead you where?
Even in the presence of "such explanations" some people could imagine unseen forces at work.
Hum... I understand...
But it's a very weak attack on the phrase. It would be harder for people to believe that knowing the basic chemical principles.

Instead of "misleading" you can say "Yeah, but even THEN some people may still believe that" (which would be a valid addition, but at least just as superfluous as your interpretation of the phrase "basic chemical principles").

Imagine a superfluous investigation that measured the angle at which sun rays fall in different parts of the Earth.
Then they say "Without this understanding some people might believe that the Earth is flat".
We know that even then some people manage to believe that the Earth is flat. What can you do?

It's not a serious attack, in my opinion.

Yes, deamon, I read the whole article and found it to be much of the same. Perhaps you can find a link to the technical paper so that the author can explain his findings rather than a reporter.
I see what you mean.

I actually trust (somewhat) the reporter. It's a serious editorial. The paper will probably be more than i can handle, and frankly the technical details don't sound interesting to me.

Do you trust answersingenesis.com?

You haven't said it, but perhaps you also think that the "may" part is vague.
Is that so?

PD: Timbrx, i have just remembered that you had made the ONLY serious question by any creationist in the history of this forum that, i reckon, has not been satisfactorily answered.
It involved gene duplication and ribosomes.
Remember?
Let's ask derwood, ok?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:28 PM on April 27, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 08:29 AM on April 27, 2009 :

According to a study published in the journal Nature, two Université de Montréal scientists have proposed a new theory for how a universal molecular machine, the ribosome, managed to self-assemble as a critical step in the genesis of all life on Earth.
"New theory" - vague. "Critical step..." presupposes abiogenisis. Misleading.


Do you think the actual article would be less vague than the news release?  Did you read it?

"While the ribosome is a complex structure it features a clear hierarchy that emerged based on basic chemical principles," says Sergey Steinberg, a Université de Montréal biochemistry professor who made his discovery with student Konstantin Bokov.
Misleading supposition. Why would a complex chemical structure NOT folow basic chemical principles? after all, it is made of basic chemicals.


So you agree that unorganized molecules can follow basic principles and form a complex structure?




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:40 PM on April 27, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp (sorry got to go back a bit -didn't have time to respond)


It does not matter what creator I am personally talking about.


How convenient! Leave it blurry enough so that it can't be disproved.


I told you, stick to the science. Science cannot determine who the creator is. Try historical records, prophecy and theology when you get to the point that you can see through your philosophical bias against a creator as opposed to naturalistic processes alone. Only then can you start to sort out who that creator might be.
My guess of course is that it is the God of the Bible alone that upsets you because he doesn’t play the game according to rules that suit you. But that is irrelevant at this point.

There's a slight chance that a creator made life. Pretty slim.


I won’t bother to ask what sort of stats you are referring to by the terms ‘pretty slim’ because that is, of course, your personal guess.

The chances that it was Yahweh, zero. None.


Your opinion again, you’re really not fond of your creator are you –that is bound to be personal.

And no, i don't fear Yahweh, nor any other fictional character.


You are hoping he is fictional, of course. It is fortunate indeed that Yahweh is a forgiving God considering what you have to say against him.


Life was either created or it evolved.

Or both.

Checkmate.


You have to do more than that to make checkmate Wisp, nice try. But you’re right –it could be created and evolved, not that I personally believe that the evidence supports that. So, why don’t we teach all three possibilities as theoretical possibilities and present ALL the evidence and then let everyone decide which evidence impresses them the most. It is history after all, not repeatable, observable science Why are we teaching only one naturalistic possibility? Why the resistance to other possibilities? Why indoctrinate, when with a little bit of effort, we could educate?



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 01:10 AM on April 28, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


You have to do more than that to make checkmate Wisp, nice try. But you’re right –it could be created and evolved, not that I personally believe that the evidence supports that. So, why don’t we teach all three possibilities as theoretical possibilities and present ALL the evidence and then let everyone decide which evidence impresses them the most. It is history after all, not repeatable, observable science Why are we teaching only one naturalistic possibility? Why the resistance to other possibilities? Why indoctrinate, when with a little bit of effort, we could educate?


Oh but we do educate, we teach science in science class, religion on religious class and history in history class.. The problem is, that people like you want to put something in science class that clearly isn't scientific at all.

Creationism isn't science, this isn't an opinion, it isn't science because it doesn't follow the scientific method, a method which has existed since the start of science. (no reclassifying to exclude this).

Through the scientific method, a hypothesis has to be:

1.Falsifiable, there has to be a mean to falsify it.
2.Testable, there has to be a mean to test it, or test the result of it (the aftermath so to speak).
3. Repeatability, the test has to be repeatable to a degree that we can get confidence in it (if 999 out of 1000 tests give the same result, then you can assume that the 1001st test would also show the same result, within a margin of error calculated on that number of course)
4. It has to make predictions (as in, it has to predict future findings or results).

Now, if creationism isn't able to provide these, it is not "science".. It is something else.
So provide the evidence Lester, show me where the "theory of creation" is able to do all these things and show us that it is science.

We evolutionists and actually creationists as well, have been waiting for it for a long time now. Even IDists have given up on doing science (remember dover, where Behe admitted they had no science? That he couldn't be bothered testing his own "hypothesis" because the likelyhood (or so he felt) of his idea being true was too high? Remember all that, Intelligent design had been around for 20 years already back then, always under the cover of 'doing science' but in court, they said they hadn't done any.. Where is the science now?).
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 03:01 AM on April 28, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Zucadragon

Wait, are you admitting that creationism works on "preconceptions" and then works on from there..


So does evolution –only naturalism allowed –or have you not noticed?

So you're basically admitting that it isn't scientific and apparently"reality" is whatever creationists decide it is.


Or what evolutionists say it is. The problem is with the presuppositions, which ones are correct?

Unlike creationism though, science "follows" the evidence


Correction, science should follow the evidence but evolutionists do not. They decide that only naturalism can be ‘true’ and then make up the stories to fit with their premise and attempt to make it fit the data (which, remember, is common to both.)

and once more, gravitational theory shows us that, the evidence leads somewhere else, so science follows.


And so it should. But that does not equate to ‘evolutionists follow’. Scientists, both creationists and evolutionists, follow the evidence where gravitational observations lead. The nice thing about gravity is that its effects can be observed, tested, repeated –altogether different from evolution which is an historical story and thus unobservable, untestable, unrepeatable.

early Christians that developed the scientific method because they fault the bible didn't explain the world correctly


Not true, stick to the facts.

You keep moving the goal posts.. You go from proteins self organizing to DNA self organizing but if you look at the thread, we're talking about "chemicals"


Well we know that proteins don’t self-organize, they need DNA. The problem is that DNA is a coded message that tells amino-acids how to line up to make a specific protein of a specific shape to interact with other coded- for proteins of other specific shapes that are no good unless they are the correct specific shape. Do you imagine that chemicals can code that sort of information all by natural attraction? They are telling the amino-acids how to line up, what shape protein to make. There is a purpose behind each functional protein that is made. This is not about chemical attraction. Even evo’s have a tendency to call it ‘the genetic code’ –so follow the evidence; code needs an encoder and that requires intelligence.

Listen to Dean Kenyon who wrote “Chemical Predestination” (which was the definitive textbook on this topic used for about 20 years.) He rejected his own textbook when he realized that it couldn’t work. It did not make him very popular, but at least he was being honest about what he could accept and what he had to reject. He ‘followed the evidence’ into an uncomfortable place, so to speak, rejecting his own theories, and others that he supported, in the process.

That is why, in laboratories, chemists can do a lot with chemicals by changing the environment (PH, salt levels, etc).


I’m afraid amino-acids are not going to line up to code for specific proteins by changing the environment of the amino-acids –but then I think you must know that.

It is not an assumption, it is a "fact" that chemicals bond and organize themselves in specific patterns under specific conditions.


Totally different to what you see with DNA which is lined up to code for proteins, which have purpose and are working together with other proteins that are also coded for and have linked purposes. This is not about chemical bonding. Why don’t you google Dean Kenyon and see why he rejected his own biochemical story. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion –it is all about following the evidence.

Viruses aren't alive


How do you define alive. Why does everyone learn about viruses in bio-logy, the study of living things?

No, you need to get something that replicates itself and can have an error in that replication


A very large order if it must come about purely by chemical bonding without the mutation story added to assist in getting it to the replication point.

Why yes we can, and we've got thousands of peer reviewed scientific articles to support us, how many do you have ?


The peer reviewers are all evolutionists –they have a bias –they do not like the challenge to their bias. They do not publish ID articles except by mistake and then normally they have to chop off the head of whoever allows an article challenging to evolution past their Nazi committee.(eg. The ex-editor of the scientific journal for the Smithsonian institute) Socialist countries have historically kept capitalist ideas out of their newspapers as well you know. There was a time when no-one East of Berlin was allowed to hear of any challenge to communism. Does that make communism correct or is it all about dogmatic adherence to a forced religious/ areligious  system? Is there any chance it is indoctrination when nothing but evolution is allowed to be published?
Why can’t evolutionists seem to wash this mud past a lot of their equally qualified peers as well as past the general public without being challenged again and again? Some may think they have have consensus, but there is a lot of dissent and it won’t go away.

They aren't like the IDiots over at the discovery institute, and thats the difference.


Which makes them all right and everyone over at the Discovery Institute wrong? I don’t think so.

You're the one throwing out possibilities, do you remember "the eye", which was irreducibly complex ?.. Oh it turned out to not be irreducibly complex..


‘Not?’ -as in ‘in the opinion of evolutionists’. Remember the ‘bias’ story I am busy telling you about. Every ‘evolutionists refuted this or that’ story you hear is only supported by evolutionists and then they think it is all sorted out and dissent has been decimated. They come up with their garbage stories of how ‘this might have’ and ‘that could have’ and ‘the other probably’ and they cannot observe it, demonstrate it, nor repeat it –but they imagine it to be science every bit as scientific as repeatable experimentation with gravity. It is ludicrous and they are blind. They deceive themselves, pat one another on the back, put their ear plugs back in and walk away. It’s the new scientific method.

You're a hypocrite if you think this applies to scientists and not IDists


Correction, ID’ists are very often scientists and evolutionists are not necessarily scientists, some are, some aren’t. You seem to be writing for ‘propoganda magazine.’ These generalizations used by evolutionists are wearing thin.

That is that anyone can actually double check any claims that evolutionists make, any test can be redone and the outcome can be checked because there are no magical elements which are "assumed" without tests, there are no conclusions which are accepted without support..


Not so. When they like the sound of one another’s just-so stories, they uncritically accept them –especially if they don’t have a better invention of their own to offer. Evolutionists have stopped using science and are relying on imagination –including their imaginative refutations of any argument against their imaginative stories.

A creationist or IDist has no peer reviewed science to pull back to.


Remember, Creationists and ID’ists are as much scientists as are evolutionists. They publish but not about anything against evolution in journals run by evolutionists. It would be politically incorrect to do so. Those articles not pro-evolution have to be published elsewhere.

They don't have peer reviewed science and are actually playing a political game to get their "ideas" in the science classroom.


What is this political game you are talking about or imagining to be occurring? What is the point? Where is the financial gain? What are the rules? Is it possible that the political game is in the minds of evolutionists purely and simply? It does not pay to be a creationist nor is it a comfortable place to watch the world from –that is the reality of the matter. This dissent is about where the truth lies. We are tired of being indoctrinated with evo ‘truth’ which is purely evo ‘opinion’.

You are so unbelievably blind that you apparently don't see the contradiction in your claim..


Show me the contradiction.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:40 AM on April 28, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester - you really don't ever present anything to back your statements up.  Everything you say is just your opinion.  

You think that Creationism should be presented as an alternate theory to evolution in a science class.  Simple question:  Why do you think Creationism is a scientific theory?

And what makes the biblical creation story any different from a creation story from any other culture?  

Creation Stories from Around the World

You might take particular note of the Babylonian Creation Myth, as it is said to have many similarities to Genesis.  Probably the writers of the Bible borrowed some of the stories from the earlier Babylonians.  

Anyway, would you consider any one of these other Creation stories as a scientific theory?  If not, then what makes the story of Genesis different?  What makes it more true than the other stories/myths?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 07:36 AM on April 28, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester10
Wisp (sorry got to go back a bit -didn't have time to respond)
Don't worry! I love answers!!

I told you, stick to the science. Science cannot determine who the creator is.
I know. It has determined the lack of need of a creator for the processes we now know, such as Evolution.

If you have real evidence pointing to a creator, please, present it. Nobody else has. Ever.

Try historical records, prophecy and theology
I pass.
when you get to the point that you can see through your philosophical bias against a creator as opposed to naturalistic processes alone.
I don't have a bias.

Again (and again, and again, and again) when your belief, or faith, or opinion, is biased towards what evidence shows, it kinda ceases to be belief, faith, opinion or bias.

Evidence.

Only then can you start to sort out who that creator might be.
Theology is void. The "historical record" is unreliable. Prophecies are either vague, or haven't been accomplished, except for those that are self fulfilling.

The prophecy didn't say that the Jews would get back to Israel because that would happen later. It happened later because the prophecy said it.

My guess of course is that it is the God of the Bible alone that upsets you because he doesn’t play the game according to rules that suit you.
He doesn't upset me. Creationism upsets me, because they want to teach defenseless children a lot of crap.
In a science class!!!

Yahweh is cruel, vindictive, capricious, jealous, powerful! It's pretty cool!

I like Greek gods as well. As capricious as Yahweh. And just as fictitious.

8 Overkill Punishments Dished out by Greek Gods:
http://regretfulmorning.com/2009/02/8-overkill-punishments-dished-out-by-greek-gods/

There's a slight chance that a creator made life. Pretty slim.
I won’t bother to ask what sort of stats you are referring to by the terms ‘pretty slim’ because that is, of course, your personal guess.
Ok, no problem, i'll answer. =D

If the Universe had traits that were in harmony with what you would expect from an intelligent creator, the chances would be higher. Something that can't be dismissed by the anthropic principle.

Everything seems random.

Well, except for the size and distance of the Moon and Earth that makes solar eclipses very cool. That's awesome.
Strangely enough, creationists don't use it.

The chances that it was Yahweh, zero. None.
Your opinion again,
Not at all. It's based on reasoning and evidence.
My opinion is in harmony with reason and evidence, but that's incidental.
you’re really not fond of your creator are you
The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
–that is bound to be personal.
Evidence and reasoning.

Yahweh was here.
I♥U

If we found that in a distant nebula (font= palatino linotype, color=teal) i would convert.



Haha, nah, i would suspect that aliens wanted to fuck with our heads. xD

But since chances of that are pretty slim too, the Yahweh hypothesis would become 10.000.000 times more likely.

10.000.000 x 0 =...

I know it wasn't Yahweh because of the contradictions.

He's supposed to be almighty, but there's no evidence of that EVEN IN THE BIBLE! Haha! How lame is that?

Creating light before creating light sources... What?

He's supposed to be all-knowing, yet in the Bible he ignores many things. He even changes his mind!

If there was a Yahweh, he can't have all the traits attributed to him. So it won't be the Yahweh.

Even if i imagine Yahweh in my head, i have to pick and chose which traits i put in him, because all of them together don't fit.

Your god doesn't fit.

And no, i don't fear Yahweh, nor any other fictional character.
You are hoping he is fictional, of course.
Can you define "hope"?

I hope for many things... None of them is related to Yahweh, Zeus, Thor, Wotan or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
It is fortunate indeed that Yahweh is a forgiving God
He turned Lot's wife into a frikin salt statue! Just for looking over her shoulder!
considering what you have to say against him.
What? That he's capricious? Jealous? Mutable? Genocidal? Megalomaniac? Infanticidal? A prick?
It wasn't me. It was the Bible. He should take it on the Bible.
What he did to poor Adam and Eve was as prickish as it gets.
They didn't know right from wrong, and he punished them anyway.
He put curiosity in them, and planted the tree of knowledge in the middle of the garden.

And what's with the snake?
Everyone thinks it was Satan. But the Bible says that it was an animal, like the other animals that Yahweh had maid, only more subtle.

Then Yahweh walked (WALKED!!!) in the garden, looking for (LOOKING FOR!!!!) Adam, and asked (ASKED!!!!) him why he had covered.

Is Yahweh all-knowing or not?

Does Yahweh know the future or not?


Good luck with your answer.
Nah, you won't even try.

Nevertheless, i dare you.

Life was either created or it evolved.
Or both.

Checkmate.
You have to do more than that to make checkmate Wisp, nice try.
Oh yeah?
But you’re right –it could be created and evolved,
Checkmate.

Nevertheless, i really appreciate your admitting that i was right. Seriously.

not that I personally believe that the evidence supports that.
Me neither. I was just invalidating your logic.
So, why don’t we teach all three possibilities
Now there are three?

No, man. Not three. Thousands.

We could be in one of Feynman's multiverses.
We could be playing virtual reality.
We could be in someone's imagination.
We could be inside a matrix.
We could be in a Universe 36 hours old.
We could be in a Universe 37 hours old.
We could be in a Universe 38 hours old.
We could be in a Universe 39 hours old.
We could be in a Universe 40 hours old.
We could be in a Universe 41 hours old.
We could be in a Universe 42 hours old.
We could be in a Universe 43 hours old.

as theoretical possibilities
You mean hypothetical. A theory has to explain things, and make predictions. Only Evolution has done that accurately with biological structures.
and present ALL the evidence
There are billions of pieces of data. Are you suggesting that we bring them all into the classroom?

By the way, every piece of evidence points to Evolution.

and then let everyone decide which evidence impresses them the most.
Which evidence impresses you most?
It is history after all, not repeatable, observable science
Evolution is testable repeatable science.
We could tell where we would find the Tiktaalik. We can do it again.
Testable. Repeatable.



You need to believe that we had a 1 in 25 million chance to find the Tiktaalik, and we were lucky. Consistently lucky.
Hum...
Miraculously lucky.
God's on our side.

Why are we teaching only one naturalistic possibility?
We only teach science.
Why the resistance to other possibilities?
Because they're not science.
Why indoctrinate, when with a little bit of effort, we could educate?
Blah blah blah?

Present real problems. Present real science.

If you can't, stay aside till you do.

EDIT:
Excellent post, orion!
Cool site too!

The Japanese creation myth seems different from what i had read.

In the beginning the Universe was like a sea of oil. Or like an egg.

What's the similarity between an egg and a sea of oil, you might ask. Well, i don't know, but it makes as much sense as the Genesis.

Rick Gervais - Genesis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9bk4_SRcwE


(Edited by wisp 4/28/2009 at 08:15 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:00 AM on April 28, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:40 AM on April 28, 2009 :
Well we know that proteins don’t self-organize, they need DNA.


Wrong, try reading about thermal proteins:

Thermal Protein


What is this political game you are talking about or imagining to be occurring? What is the point? Where is the financial gain? What are the rules?


Surely you've read the wedge document from the Discovery Institute?  They don't deny it.

We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

The Wedge strategy can be divided into three distinct but interdependent phases, which are roughly but not strictly chronological. We believe that, with adequate support, we can accomplish many of the objectives of Phases I and II in the next five years (1999-2003), and begin Phase III (See "Goals/ Five Year Objectives/Activities").


Of course the wedge strategy was derailed by their dismal performance at the Dover trial.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:18 AM on April 28, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 08:36 AM on April 28, 2009 :
Lester - you really don't ever present anything to back your statements up.  Everything you say is just your opinion.  

You think that Creationism should be presented as an alternate theory to evolution in a science class.  Simple question:  Why do you think Creationism is a scientific theory?

And what makes the biblical creation story any different from a creation story from any other culture?  

Creation Stories from Around the World

You might take particular note of the Babylonian Creation Myth, as it is said to have many similarities to Genesis.  Probably the writers of the Bible borrowed some of the stories from the earlier Babylonians.  

Anyway, would you consider any one of these other Creation stories as a scientific theory?  If not, then what makes the story of Genesis different?  What makes it more true than the other stories/myths?


Yup, this is the grand issue really, this is the big problem, the moment you started up the whole evolutionist nazi anti science conspiracy, I know there isn't really much from your side of the debate, you're just regurgitating the same ol bullshit.

There is only really one issue, and that is "show us the possitive science".

You haven't done so, ID hasn't done so and creationism hasn't done so, all they are doing is pointing at things and going "that is God/Designer, right there".

But you can set us straight, you can set us all straight, all those darned evolutionists will eat their hats if you can show some science that positively supports creationism or ID that is:

1.Falsifiable.
2.Repeatable.
3.Testable.
4.Makes predictions.

Anything really, and we'll move on from there, the rest is just bla bla around the issue.. This is the real issue and no "conspiracy theory of the big evolutionist that are just like nazi's" will change that fact.


You talk of "controversy" and "dissent" among the general public, but really, the general public isn't scientist, would you hire joe the plumber to work in a nuclear power plant if the public finds him "charismatic and probably good at it?"

No you don't, the  general public has nothing to do with how science works, their opinion has no bearing on the scientific breakthroughs that are acquired throughout the years.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 08:27 AM on April 28, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 09:18 AM on April 28, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 06:40 AM on April 28, 2009 :
Well we know that proteins don’t self-organize, they need DNA.


Wrong, try reading about thermal proteins:

Thermal Protein


What is this political game you are talking about or imagining to be occurring? What is the point? Where is the financial gain? What are the rules?


Surely you've read the wedge document from the Discovery Institute?  They don't deny it.

We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

The Wedge strategy can be divided into three distinct but interdependent phases, which are roughly but not strictly chronological. We believe that, with adequate support, we can accomplish many of the objectives of Phases I and II in the next five years (1999-2003), and begin Phase III (See "Goals/ Five Year Objectives/Activities").


Of course the wedge strategy was derailed by their dismal performance at the Dover trial.




Yeah, wasn't the first directive of the wedge the scientific evidence for intelligent design, that without the science, it wouldn't work out ?

And what did they say in the Dover trial again, oh right, no science?


Also, thermal protein.. OUCH Lester, there goes most of your argument.. Because now not only do we have means to form amino acids.. There are also ways to have those form proteins, and there's science to back both up.

How can you deny the "possibility" now?

(Edited by Zucadragon 4/28/2009 at 08:30 AM).
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 08:28 AM on April 28, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi Zucadragon,
What is your problem with the Discovery Institute's wedge doc -specifically?

And what did they say in the Dover trial again, oh right, no science?


What are you talking about?

Also, thermal protein.. OUCH Lester, there goes most of your argument


As for your 'thermal protein' link -it led to a Wikipedia page which says it has no page with that name. It had no info whatsoever, nor led me anywhere.

Because now not only do we have means to form amino acids..


Amino acids are not a problem but the leap from amino-acids to proteins is. It is like the leap from a tree to turning it into a log cabin. You need some instructions on how to turn the one into the other. Actually I am underplaying it here -it is far more difficult than that.

There are also ways to have those form proteins, and there's science to back both up.


So lets see the science huh?! This ribosomal stuff falls far short of science. It is storytelling again replete with 'likely' 'possibly' and the usual imaginary scenarios. I really don't understand why otherwise intelligent people can't see it.

How can you deny the "possibility" now?


That's the problem. It's all about 'possibilities'. But it is possible intelligence created the instructions as well but none of us were there so in the absence of experimentation, repetition and observation -how can you call it 'science.' It is philosophy and imagination.











-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:07 AM on April 28, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:07 AM on April 28, 2009 :


As for your 'thermal protein' link -it led to a Wikipedia page which says it has no page with that name. It had no info whatsoever, nor led me anywhere.


Type "thermal protein" into the Wikipedia search box.  Then hit the "Enter" button on your keyboard.

That's the problem. It's all about 'possibilities'. But it is possible intelligence created the instructions as well but none of us were there so in the absence of experimentation, repetition and observation -how can you call it 'science.' It is philosophy and imagination.


The paper seems pretty mathematically rigorous to me, did you read it?

From http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7232/extref/nature07749-s1.pdf

The calculation of probability P was based on the analysis of the scheme of D1 and D2
dependencies shown above. This scheme is equivalent to that given in Fig 2b of the main
text, except that here, all D2 dependencies are divided in four classes based on their
ability to form cycles. Each class is shown by its own colour. Red, green and blue
dependencies correspond to A-minor interactions. Violet dependencies correspond to
non-local pseudoknots.
In the 28 red dependencies QP, element Q is positioned in the 23S rRNA
secondary structure on the way between PTC and element P. For each dependency of this
group, the inversion of the orientation will provide a cycle. The probability that none of
these dependencies creates a cycle is thus P1 = 2-28.
Then, 13 green inter-branch dependencies can form additional cycles containing
two or more such dependencies. For example, a simultaneous inversion of two green
dependencies 5754 and 549 creates cycle 574795457. Therefore, the
probability that these two dependencies form a cycle is ¼, and, correspondingly, the
probability that they do not form a cycle is ¾. The total probability P2 that all green
dependences do not form cycles was determined through consideration of all possible
combinations of orientations of the green dependences. This analysis provides P2 = 207 ×
2-10.

Finally, 13 blue as well as 2 violet dependencies do not provide additional
opportunities for cycling compared to the red and green dependencies.
The total probability of the absence of cycles is thus P = P1 × P2 = 207 × 2-38 
7.53 × 10-10.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:21 AM on April 28, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 11:07 AM on April 28, 2009 :
Hi Zucadragon,
What is your problem with the Discovery Institute's wedge doc -specifically?

And what did they say in the Dover trial again, oh right, no science?


What are you talking about?

Also, thermal protein.. OUCH Lester, there goes most of your argument


As for your 'thermal protein' link -it led to a Wikipedia page which says it has no page with that name. It had no info whatsoever, nor led me anywhere.

Because now not only do we have means to form amino acids..


Amino acids are not a problem but the leap from amino-acids to proteins is. It is like the leap from a tree to turning it into a log cabin. You need some instructions on how to turn the one into the other. Actually I am underplaying it here -it is far more difficult than that.

There are also ways to have those form proteins, and there's science to back both up.


So lets see the science huh?! This ribosomal stuff falls far short of science. It is storytelling again replete with 'likely' 'possibly' and the usual imaginary scenarios. I really don't understand why otherwise intelligent people can't see it.

How can you deny the "possibility" now?


That's the problem. It's all about 'possibilities'. But it is possible intelligence created the instructions as well but none of us were there so in the absence of experimentation, repetition and observation -how can you call it 'science.' It is philosophy and imagination.




Oh, I personally have no problem with the wedge document, it outlines the scientifically bankrupt movement of intelligent design though, let me quote what the wedge documents says:

Phase I is the essential component of everything that comes afterward. Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade. A lesson we have learned from the history of science is that it is unnecessary to outnumber the opposing establishment. Scientific revolutions are usually staged by an initially small and relatively young group of scientists who are not blinded by the prevailing prejudices and who are able to do creative work at the pressure points, that is, on those critical issues upon which whole systems of thought hinge. So, in Phase I we are supporting vital witting and research at the sites most likely to crack the materialist edifice.


And now do you remember the Dover case?.. Where Intelligent design admitted that it didn't do any science and hadn't done any research ?

So their "essential component" is sadly missing isn't it, but that didn't stop them from skipping to step 2 and 3, this is the core of their dishonesty.

There is no science, there is no research, but their "indoctrination" (in their own words) still is valid apparantly.

Let me just quote from the dover trial, just to make sure you get what I'm saying, or better yet, what IDist Behe is saying.

The question was:

And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?


And the answer was:

A. That is correct, yes.


Can it be any more clear for you, and just to make sure, you can read the case online and its on day 12.


It is storytelling if you don't stick your hands out and start looking around a little, seriously, put some "effort" into your research, you just close your eyes and shake your head "no, it doesn't exist" while in reality it does.. Don't you understand that scientific research doesn't just "dissapear" even if you don't look for it, it's still there.



And coupling back, Lester asked, what contradicted  a claim he made, let me clarify:

Again, this is the evo garbage that you have believed because you want to. Reality check – many creationists and ID proponents are scientists inside labs doing research and testing hypotheses. It’s like having a Christian in the Soviet Union. Very dangerous and politically incorrect. Those are the people that are truelly searching for the truth rather than uncritically accepting the Darwin partyline. There is nothing financially rewarding about being anti-establishment but some people prefer the truth.


This contradicts reality, as the IDists have admitted, there is no research done on ID.. They said this under oath in the Dover case.. You keep bringing things like this up, but it contradicts reality.

As for creationist research on the "truth of things". You can talk all you want, but you haven't shown any creationist research that can hold up to scientific scrutiny, none that haven't been refuted by reality.

Bringing these arguments up is just wasted time, you've got nothing to show.


(Edited by Zucadragon 4/29/2009 at 05:51 AM).

(Edited by Zucadragon 4/29/2009 at 05:52 AM).

(Edited by Zucadragon 4/29/2009 at 05:53 AM).
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 03:47 AM on April 29, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's the problem. It's all about 'possibilities'.
No, it's not.

That we live inside a matrix is also a possibility. You won't consider it because it doesn't help the Bible.
We don't consider it because there's no need (so far).

We don't consider supernaturalism because there are no reasons.
Everything we've learned so far tells us that there's nothing supernatural.

No predictions can be made assuming supernaturalism.

But it is possible intelligence created the instructions as well but none of us were there so in the absence of experimentation, repetition and observation
Yes, it's possible. It's also possible that the Universe was created yesterday, with objects, planets, fossils, memories, all in place.

Why would we waste time on that possibility?

Would you teach that in a science class?

-how can you call it 'science.'
Haha! Because it explain things in a useful way! It allows us to make predictions!

Your turn.

How can you call ID 'science'?

It is philosophy and imagination.
If you agree that philosophy and imagination can make a 1/25.000.000 prediction, ok, so be it.

As always, you get lost in words that you can't back up with facts.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:32 AM on April 29, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi Zucadragon,

And now do you remember the Dover case?.. Where Intelligent design admitted that it didn't do any science and hadn't done any research ?


Who is ‘intelligent design’ –where can I find this quote? I’ll bet there’s more to this then you have been told because as far as I know there is no person or organization who can be called ‘Intelligent Design’ so I think it must have been some particular organization that does not do research specifically and the quote is taken out of context for effect. This is not to say that you are doing it on purpose but just that I know this is the sort of thing evolutionists pick off evo sites from other evolutionists without finding out what actually was said.

So their "essential component" is sadly missing isn't it, but that didn't stop them from skipping to step 2 and 3, this is the core of their dishonesty.


Firstly I know that some research is specifically funded by private organizations for creation interests. There is no tax money allocated for specific research that creationist organizations would like to do so they are limited by funding. I also know that a lot of what we know is from scientific research done in academia since as I have said, the data we use is the same; it is the interpretation that differs –because at its base, the worldview that people use for their interpretive base is the thing that differs.It is all about basic philosophy driving interpretations and conclusions.
As an example, let’s take the fossil record –the data is available for everybody, the research has been done and fossils are still being found. The data as far as we are concerned supports a creationist hypothesis better than it fits the evolutionist hypothesis.We are comparing the two opposing worldviews while evolutionists are just fitting the data into theirs. They have no ulterior hypothesis –in other words the conclusion is there before the evidence and is thus forced to fit, and has to be ignored or explained away if it doesn’t. What else can they do, there is no other option.

There is no science, there is no research, but their "indoctrination" (in their own words) still is valid apparantly.


Sadly, the indoctrination is all yours. We actually have to think to break away from what we are forced into believing in schools, universities and in the media.
We are comparing two different worldviews and rejecting your interpretation; you only have one interpretation so there is no choice.
And the answer was:
A. That is correct, yes.



Can it be any more clear for you, and just to make sure, you can read the case online and its on day 12.


I’ll bet there’s a lot more to it than this but I’d like to follow online –where do I go? Please give me a link if you can –thanks.

It is storytelling if you don't stick your hands out and start looking around a little, seriously, put some "effort" into your research, you just close your eyes and shake your head "no, it doesn't exist" while in reality it does.. Don't you understand that scientific research doesn't just "dissapear" even if you don't look for it, it's still there.


That is a perfect description of what I feel evolutionists are doing, only I put it this way –there is only one truth and it remains the truth even if you don’t personally feel inclined to believe it. If the data didn't fit our interpretation, we'd be wasting our time. It's not as if we are fighting for support for an elephant holding up the corners of the world or something equally quaint. We believe that an intelligence had to be responsible for the information content of the genome and thus for life while you are quite sure that no intelligence was necessary and that random mutation and natural selection is perfectly capable of causing every creature on this planet to come into existence. That is what you think, isn't it?








-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:38 AM on April 30, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Who is ‘intelligent design’ –where can I find this quote? I’ll bet there’s more to this then you have been told because as far as I know there is no person or organization who can be called ‘Intelligent Design’ so I think it must have been some particular organization that does not do research specifically and the quote is taken out of context for effect. This is not to say that you are doing it on purpose but just that I know this is the sort of thing evolutionists pick off evo sites from other evolutionists without finding out what actually was said.


Oh typo, I meant "Behe".. Behe admitted that the discovery institute hadn't done any research.

But let me just give you a link to the full case and you can look it up yourself, you'll see that they aren't "out of context" and they aren't from an evolutionist website either.
That was actually the question, and that was actually Behe's answer to the question.

http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm

here's the transcript.

and here is one on wiki as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_trial_documents

Go read it all, please, and if you don't trust them, get a copy yourself through means you trust, but I can assure you, they won't be different.

Firstly I know that some research is specifically funded by private organizations for creation interests. There is no tax money allocated for specific research that creationist organizations would like to do so they are limited by funding. I also know that a lot of what we know is from scientific research done in academia since as I have said, the data we use is the same; it is the interpretation that differs –because at its base, the worldview that people use for their interpretive base is the thing that differs.It is all about basic philosophy driving interpretations and conclusions.
As an example, let’s take the fossil record –the data is available for everybody, the research has been done and fossils are still being found. The data as far as we are concerned supports a creationist hypothesis better than it fits the evolutionist hypothesis.We are comparing the two opposing worldviews while evolutionists are just fitting the data into theirs. They have no ulterior hypothesis –in other words the conclusion is there before the evidence and is thus forced to fit, and has to be ignored or explained away if it doesn’t. What else can they do, there is no other option


Really? I disagree, creationism starts with god and then sees what evidence fits a literal interpretation of the bible.. Real science starts with the observations, tries to explain the observations and make predictions bases on those explenations and makes sure the explenations are falsifiable.

Is god or the Bible falsifiable?

No.

Is evolutionary theory falsifiable?

yes it is.

So you're wrong, completely wrong, but even if you were right, it would have no place in this discussion, lets focus on dover and intelligent design, on what Behe said on the dover trail on the "research" that wasn't been doing in the 20 years before that so far.


Sadly, the indoctrination is all yours. We actually have to think to break away from what we are forced into believing in schools, universities and in the media.
We are comparing two different worldviews and rejecting your interpretation; you only have one interpretation so there is no choice.


No, actually, we have an interpretation that seems to fit the evidence, you do not. Thats the issue.. We can fit every little part together and explain possible future parts, creationism can't. There is nothing in creation literature that comes close to the explenatory power that evolutionary theory has, there are no scientific results that led to breakthroughs through creationism either.

I don't get why you hang on to something that hasn't given us anything positive at all, what compels you?

I’ll bet there’s a lot more to it than this but I’d like to follow online –where do I go? Please give me a link if you can –thanks.


I posted two links above and let me post a more complete quote from the transcript (found in the first link) that you feel might be out of context, no words have been changed.
And again, this is Behe giving the answers (marked with a capital A)

Q. Let's go on to immune system. That's
another biochemical system that you argued
in Darwin's Black Box and you argue in your
testimony is irreducibly complex, is that
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And I'm correct in understanding that you
have not written any peer reviewed articles in
scientific journals arguing that the immune
system is in fact irreducibly complex?
A. No. My argument is in my book, that's
right.
Q. And nobody else has written any articles in
peer reviewed scientific journals arguing that
the immune system is irreducibly complex?
A. Nobody has used those terms, but there are
articles which speak of the requirement for
multiple parts.
Q. They discuss what the immune system is
comprised of?
A. Yes, in terms of it needing different
several different parts.
Q. But those are not articles that argue for
the irreducible complexity of or do not argue
that the immune system can't evolve because it
is irreducibly complex?
A. No, they don't argue that.


And back to you:

That is a perfect description of what I feel evolutionists are doing, only I put it this way –there is only one truth and it remains the truth even if you don’t personally feel inclined to believe it. If the data didn't fit our interpretation, we'd be wasting our time. It's not as if we are fighting for support for an elephant holding up the corners of the world or something equally quaint. We believe that an intelligence had to be responsible for the information content of the genome and thus for life while you are quite sure that no intelligence was necessary and that random mutation and natural selection is perfectly capable of causing every creature on this planet to come into existence. That is what you think, isn't it?


Not really, though I don't believe in God as explained in the bible, I do believe in something directing evolution.. I just hold science as a high standard.. I have my own spiritual beliefs, but I believe that "I'm making a mistake" when all the evidence is showing me wrong.

And throughout my life so far, I've read a lot about evolution, creationism and intelligent design, and I see the arguments and articles posted and written, but they don't fit the evidence, they don't fit the observations, they don't "explain them" at all.. And so far, even though evolutionary theory is far from perfect, it explains it better than anything else, so thats where my science head goes to untill there is something that explains it better.


 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 10:46 AM on April 30, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just adding a question.. Behe admitted in the dover case that there are no peer reviewed scientific articles from the intelligent design movement that support irreducible complexity of the immune system.

Yet his book and the discovery institue see it as irreducibly complex?

Don't you find that weird, I mean, doesn't that sound like they have a conclusion already, and are now trying to find things to support that conclusion ?
As in, they don't have any research to back up their claim that something is irreducibly complex, but they say it anyways?

Why would they do that?
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 10:52 AM on April 30, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:38 AM on April 26, 2009 :
So, creatinist John Baumgardner's pro-YEC models are not good then?

Not necessarily, it all depends on what his preconceptions are and whether they are more or less in line with reality in comparison to the preconceptions of the naturalists.

So, reality has little import?
You see, when Baumgardner runs his program with YEC assumptions, he gets a young earth.  But when reality-based values are plugged into the software, we get more realsitic, old earth dates.  You see, when Baumgardner runs his software to be YEC friendly, he inputs values that he knows are incorrect, such as zero heat being generated within the earth.
That is what you have to do to produce YEC-friendly 'science.'

Of course for you, the answer to the question is obvious but that is your bias, everybody has one.
Yes, they do.  My bias tends toward not making stuff up to prop up your beliefs.


Why is this enormous?

How do proteins self-organize without their instructions?

You are setting up a tautology.  

What do you mean by 'self-organize'?  Which proteins?
The ones we have now?

If so, then you are setting up a strawman, too.

Where did the instructions come from? It’s all very theoretical that DNA came about by chance and random chemical attraction.

Hold on - are you talking about proteins or DNA?  They are not the same, you know.
The "instructions" in DNA are physical intweractions, not a pre-written set of instructions like you might get in a box when you buy a new bike or something.

Chance AND random?  Which is it?

Are you familiar with the work of Robert Hazen?

Too many people in the genetics field say that it is ‘not by chance’ and has nothing to do with natural attraction and chemical bonding.


Really?

Like who?  YEC John Sanford?

Since there is no evidence to suggest that DNA self-assembled into a code

There is no evidence that there was any 'purpose' behind the genetic code, and analyses of the genetic code indicate that it is not completely invariant.

that translates into specifically shaped proteins that work together with other specifically shaped proteins that just happen to interact three dimensionally, there is nothing ‘scientific’ about your assumptions that they did.

Is there anything scientific about your's - that an anthropomorphic deity, one of several recognized by the people's of the times, poofed it all into existence on a whim in 6 24 hour days no more than 10,000 years ago and in the process, produced physical evidence that would fool thousands of learned people in the future into concluding it all happened natually over the course of billions of years?

Of course, I like how you tossed in the word 'specifically' so many times, as if there is this grand precision to it all.

The cytochrome c protein in humans differs from that in tuna by nearly 50% of the amino acids in its sequence, yet both proteins do the same job and do it well.
Is that the 'specificity' you are talking about - 50% variation in sequence?

And what about the 'code' itself - 64 possible combinationxs for only 20 amino acids. Some amino acids coded for by a single codon, some mby as many as six.
What is the 'purpose' in that?  What is the evidence that this haphazard code is the result of a super intelligence?

So why should we allow for your assumptions over mine in the absence of evidence?

Because despite your claims, there IS at least some evidence that natural processes can do the things you claim they cannot, while there is ZERO evidence for your Sky God story.

Can you present anything more than assertions?

Can you?


Yes, and I've done so, but you folks seem to prefer toignore those posts.  Funny, that.

I noticeds that you decided to moit this question:

How was the enormity calculated?
Recall that YOU had claimed that there was an "enormous possibility" that intelligence was behind it all.
Where is the evidence for this enormity?
ID IS a pseudoscience.  It has nothing to do with definitions.  

It has everything to do with the revised definition of ‘science’ that allows for only ‘natural explanations’ which presupposes that only natural explanations are responsible.

Great - so how, exactly, do we do anything that would be recognized as science with the assumption that supernatural entities - who, by definition, do not fall under the norms of physical reality - could be behind what we see?

By defining supernatural/intelligent causes out of the equation, evolutionists then define ID as pseudoscience because it is not a ‘natural explanation.’ It is all very disingenuous.

From my own perspective, that is not how I concluded that ID is pseudoscience.  IN fact, my conclusion is based on the antics of those involved in ID, and it hasnothing to do with definitions or biases.
My conclusion is based on the fact that ID advocates:

1. Generally do not actually do any research.
Far and away the most common ID advocate 'science' consists of taking the publications of real researchers and misrepresenting it, nitpicking it, distoerting it, dismissing it, etc.
Those rare birds that do (Axe, etc.) tend to produce at best ambiguous results which they then spin - on blogs and in DI 'press releases' - into pro-ID 'science,' while on closer inspection, one sees that their work is hardly supportive of ID.  Look at the hyperbole surrounding the Behe and Snokes papwer a few years ago, in which they claim that evolution could not do what Richard Lenski's experiments showed it could...  
Then there is Wells' big Rivista joke - he publishes apaper that the DI labelled as 'research' - yet the paper itself offers nothing more than a silly hypothesis about how because centrioles look sort of like turbines, that they really ARE turbines , and thus produce a force.  Problem is, this idea had already been tested and refuted a couple years earlier.
Poor ID...

2. ID advocates rely nearly exclusively on public relations gimmicks and dshonest historical revisionism to gain sympathy.

They got the scientific endeavor pretty much backward - you do the science FIRST, THEN announce your findings.  The DI runs to the press, declares they've got science, then when asked to present it, cry that they are discriminated against, so there really is notr science after all.

3. They lie. They embellish.  They wildly extrapolate.  
How many times do we read that some 'scientist' who advocates ID is the 'top in their field', a 'world renowned expert', a 'top scientist'?  And when youlook into these claims, how oftwen do you find that the 'top' ID scientists are really nobodies, or are in totally unrelated field, or are not even scientists at all?

Why did the DI refer to the "Yale ID Meeting" a few years ago?  Yes, it was an ID meeting, yes it was at Yale, but it was at Yale only insofar as a chapter of the Campus Crusade for Christ had RENTED a lecture hall in which to hold the meeting.

And what about the "Princeton Office" of the ISCID?  The 'office' which just happened to be the size of a rented post office box in Princeton, NJ?


What about the failures of Dembski's "explanatory filter" - how it was claimed ot generate no false positives or negatives, then was shown to do both?

And so on...


ID 'scientists' have done even less than creation scientsts.  

You are assuming that ID scientists exist outside of ‘science’ but they live and work along with evolutionists in laboratories and in many cases you do not know who they are.

And yet they cannot seem to produce anything premised on their 'science.'
Behe - there is a guy with an up and running, funded laboratory who easily could have conducted ID-based research.

Take a look at his scientific output since he wrote DBB - it has dropped off to nothing.

It is your assumption that they are random hicks in the public and outside of science that is leading you astray.

No, I know who they are.  I've seen the lists.  
Have you ever heard of PSCID?

It is an oline ID jounral established in, I think it was 1999 or therabouts.  A multi-disciplinary ID journal, originally set up to be published every month.  The first few issues contained the usuual ID boilerplate - some re-worked yet already existent essays by Denton, Meyer, etc.  Then it came out every other month.  Then twice a year.  It has not been published at all for over 3 years now.

If ID is such a fruitful concept for scientific research, why can they not even publish articles in their won multidiosciplinary jouirnal?

Sorry Lester - I think it is you who are making assumptions about what I know.

Please tell us what about ID makes it science.
Life was either created or it evolved. You cannot arbitrarily assume one or the other. It is a philosophical bias and thus not objective.

And that is why a religio-political movement that relies primarily on press releases and disinformation and coopting explicitly religious arguments is 'science'???


So, is positoing "an intelliogence musta did it" really an "explanation"?

It is if you look at DNA and protein assembly objectively and don’t randomly throw out one obvious possibility.

So what is the alternative explanation?

Basically, you are employing what I call the argument by awe.  And it isn't really much of an argument.

When I took microbiology back in 1992, the first time I saw an electron micriograph of a T7 bacteriophage, I remember thinking to myslef, "That thing looks man-made."  If you do not know what T7 looks like, I will just say it looks sort of like a tiny lunar lander.
Then later I found out about molecular scales and protein interactions, and realized that that "designed" appearance of T7 is really due to how the proteins interact.  They can only interact so many ways due to their shape and charges, and the proteins that make up the envelope of T7 link up to form what looks like a little geometeric cylinder with legs.
Taking the awe factor out of my thinking did wonders for my ability to understand complex scientific issues.

But wait - what creator are you talking about?  The ID crowd claims that ID is not a religious issue.

It does not matter what creator I am personally talking about. That cannot be determined by science. Nor can the lack of necessity for a creator be randomly decided upon by naturalists.

Of course not.  But who 'randomly' did this?

They are right, it is not a religious issue to determine whether an intelligence was required. It is a practical issue. The argument is purely one worldview versus another using the scientific data common to both.
So what scientific data do you interprtet to indicate the necessity of a Grand Designer?

Please tell us what about ID makes it science.

Science should be a search for truth not forceful dogmatic insistence that naturalistic causes are the only explanation (and the imaginative scenarios that stem from it) in the absence of confirmation of the original premise. It is a bit like saying ‘my house built itself’ and having decided that that is true, we sit around and imagine how that happened until we convince ourselves that it happened this way or that. Pointless enterprise.

That is all well and good, but it did not even attempt to explain what about ID makes it science.
I know that IDcreationists apparently like the reassuring certainty that accompanies the proclamations of thier heroes, but the problem is that if they are wrong, they are COMPLETELY wrong.  

In your humble but biased opinion.

And in your arrogant and biased opinion, if but one pro-ID person who claims scientific credentials claims X, and X is in line with Scriptuire, then you know it is right despite the fact that every other non-pro-ID scientist says otherwise, and looking at the evidence, one sees that the pro-ID proclamation is just wishful thinking and wild extrapolation.

And of course, the street-level creto is too unsophisticated to realize or allow this.

And what about the non-street level creationist?

You mean like Kurt Wise or Todd Wood, who both have doctorates, who both are YECs, and who both have claimed that the actual evidence suporots old earth evolution but they KNOW YECism is right because they are biblical literalists?

And what about the unsophisticated brainwashed street level evo –what is more intelligent about them?

Nothing, excpet that they tend not to rely on charlatans and frauds with books to sell and a Faith to peddle.

Only that they believe people like you without any discriminatory ability whatsoever. For that you allocate them an imaginary intelligence based on your own prejudice.

No, I conclude this.
I know that there are some pretty goofy 'evos' out there.  I tend to avoud them.  But at least they are usually open to corerection and having their misconceptions corrected.  
On another forum, I recently corrected a young evo on the issue of horse evolution.  He thankied me and moved on.
On the other hand, on the same forum, there is a creationist there who has been pushing the 'evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics' for about the tenth time this year, despite having at least three physicist evos explain how he was wrong AND having been linked to AiG's list of arguments not to use which lists the 2LoT among them.
So, tell me what the difference is, since you pretend to know.
I know that the evo will not use an erroneous horse evolution argument again.

I also know that the YEC will keep using the 2LoT argument over and over and over on as many forums as he can.

Why do you think that is?

As there is not reason to 'believe' otherwise, why not?

Remember this is your worldview bias –it is not ‘scientifically’ conceived, it is pure philosophical bias.

Yes, of course it is the case, but I notice you did not even attempt to justify the consideration of your position.

Yes, since these folks are actually doing research and testing hypotheses, while the IDcreationists do nothing but sit on thesidelines playing Monday morning quaretback and throwing stones.

Again, this is the evo garbage that you have believed because you want to. Reality check – many creationists and ID proponents are scientists inside labs doing research and testing hypotheses.


SO WHERE IS THEIR SCIENCE???

This is the second time you've insisted that ID scientists are out there doing stuff.  It remind sme of the claims that YEC is scientific because some of the greatest scientists in history, like Newton, were creationists.  Never mind that these folks did NOTHING to support a YEC position with their work.

This is what you are doing - I am supposed to conclude that ID is scientific because there are some pro-ID scientists out there doing research on things unrelated to ID?

So, is evolution science because there is a pro-evolution scientist out there doing research on diabetes?

It’s like having a Christian in the Soviet Union. Very dangerous and politically incorrect.

Right, I mean it is so like the USSR - no, it is just like NAZI Germany!  Yeah, except that instead of Christians (I thought ID had nothing to do with religion???) being the oppressed minority, they are the overhwelming majority and STILL cry prosecution!

Those are the people that are truelly searching for the truth rather than uncritically accepting the Darwin partyline.

So, AGAIN - WHERE IS THEIR WORK????

Their OWN JOURNAL has not even been published in 3 years!  The DI has something like 4 million a year for 'research' money - yet all they seem able to do is trot out press releases whining about how nobody in academia likes them.

WHERE IS THE SCIENCE???
There is nothing financially rewarding about being anti-establishment but some people prefer the truth.

Right, I forgot.

Those lonely, pressed upon ID scientists are the true Truth seekers out there, toiling away, unresepected, scoffed at.  

So, this 'truth' - can it only be presented in unreviewed vanity press books and on websites where commentary is blocked or heavily censored?
is it always going to be in the form of press releases and angry, smarmy blogs written by lawyers and history and poli-sci professors?


Having been part of the Darwin party, I can truelly say that I am not being rude to you, I understand the blindness that accompanies evolutionary belief –I have been there and my life was a whole lot easier when I tagged the line. When you get to the point that you accept your own philosophical bias and the fact that it is purely philosophical, you may start to awaken to reality.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.    



Ah, the old "I USED to be a Darwinist, then I saw the light" routine...  Yup - you and Stuart Nevins, right?


Sorry, I don't believe that for one second.

I am a "Darwinsit" because unlike the overwhelming majority of creationists, I have actually walked the walk and engaged in primary research, and I have seen the evidence that can only be interpreted one true way, and it doesn't point to a magical skyman blowing on dirt.



(Edited by derwood 4/30/2009 at 11:34 AM).

(Edited by derwood 4/30/2009 at 11:35 AM).

(Edited by derwood 4/30/2009 at 11:38 AM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:17 AM on April 30, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 09:29 AM on April 26, 2009 :
Lester is (correctly in my opinion) addressing the foundational principals that make a vague and non specific article so appealing to the evo mindset.


As opposed to the precise scientific proclamation "ID diddit"...

So, planning on ever addressing my post on creatinist research or vestigials or anything of substance, or is dash and dodge the rule of the YEC on here?






-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:25 AM on April 30, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:40 AM on April 28, 2009 :
So does evolution –only naturalism allowed –or have you not noticed?


With your vast knowledge of the scientific endeavor, can you please outline an experiment that woulod take into account supernatural intervention?

That is, say you are a medical researcher and you are testing the effectiveness of a new drug.  How do you control for magic and miracles?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:29 AM on April 30, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:07 AM on April 28, 2009 :
Hi Zucadragon,
What is your problem with the Discovery Institute's wedge doc -specifically?


Maybe that they sort of skipped the whole research part and went directly to public relations and lobbying?

And that it makes it pretty clear that ID is a religious enterprise (i.e., when ID advocates claim it is not they are lying).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:32 AM on April 30, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That was excellent, derwood.

Each one of Lester's posts contains so many fallacies that it gets really tiresome to address them all.

And when you do, he says that he doesn't read long posts.

Being that the case, Lester, give us just one lie per post, and the reply will be short.

Derwood, timbrx had a couple of questions that belong to your field, some time ago. We couldn't give them a complete answer. In "dinochicken". Can you look them up, please?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:49 PM on April 30, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi Wisp,
We don't consider supernaturalism because there are no reasons.
Everything we've learned so far tells us that there's nothing supernatural.


Your bias is so blind!There is no way for you to know that there’s nothing supernatural. You’ve obviously never properly investigated the possibility or you would know how wrong you are.
Do you realize that there is no proof that naturalistic processes could have produced life? So there, you have faith.

No predictions can be made assuming supernaturalism.


Well there’s one very clear one for a start. If supernaturalism were true, we would expect fossils to show clear leaps with very few so-called “intermediates”. If naturalism were true, we would expect billions of intermediates as one kind turned into another slowly. It would also be very clear what turned into what. Evolution is not falsifiable and it is not science as a result. Evolutionists search in vain for the billions of intermediates that there should be and find so very little. That little apparently satisfies their need for evidence for evolution because of the philosophical prejudice that overrides reason.
Evolution  is non-falsifiable. Absolutely everything points to evolution. All the many problems and anomalies also serve as evidence for evolution because all that is required is that we invent an alternate explanation that causes the anomalies to be accepted as evidence as well.
Darwinists claim that the mere logical possibility that random mutation and natural selection may in some unknown manner account for a biological system counts in their favour. They also expect sceptics to try to prove a negative, ie. to prove that Darwinism is impossible. In the history of science no successful theory has ever demonstrated that all rival theories are impossible. Rather a theory succeeds by explaining the data better than competing ideas.That’s what ID does.
The bare assertion that one sort of complex system can turn into another sort of complex system by random mutation and natural selection is not evidence of anything. Children being taught to uncritically accept such vaporous assertions are being seriously misled. They are being taught to mistake assertions for experimental demonstrations. That’s you Wisp –a misled indoctrinated product of modern ‘science’.
Haha! Because it explain things in a useful way! It allows us to make predictions!

Your turn.

It also allows you to accept absolutely anything as evidence for evolution. If your predictions were important, you would still be wondering where the billions of intermediates were that Darwin predicted would be found and lamented were not found in his time. However, that turned out to be no problem. It is no longer predicted, we just change what we seek into what we find and exclaim out loud how satisfied we are with the ‘evidence’ that is positive in our every field of endeavour.

How can you call ID 'science'?

It explains the data better than evolution does. It should at the very least be the competing paradigm. As I’ve mentioned before, you are right and evolution is true if there are no alternatives. That is the bubble you live in. Evolution is correct even before the evidence is found. That is your philosophical bias. How would we test for supernaturalism ?Why bother. We accept so much, in the absence of real testing, for evolution, so why should we be held to higher standards?

I told you, stick to the science. Science cannot determine who the creator is.

I know. It has determined the lack of need of a creator for the processes we now know, such as Evolution.


How did it determine the lack of need for a creator? By inventing an imaginary scenario for how vast change happened to account for all the varability of life on this planet. Try demonstrating it, then we would have no further argument.

If the Universe had traits that were in harmony with what you would expect from an intelligent creator, the chances would be higher. Something that can't be dismissed by the anthropic principle.

Everything seems random.

Those seem to be theological reasons for not accepting the possibility of an intelligent creator. You want God to conform to your image of him and are disappointed.
Well, except for the size and distance of the Moon and Earth that makes solar eclipses very cool. That's awesome.
Strangely enough, creationists don't use it.

That is only one of many fine-tuned parameters that make chance unlikely. Creationists do use them. Far too much fine tuning out there. Even you are fine tuned to keep on existing –you may not have noticed because you were too busy accepting that nature and chance didit.
Of course in the usual evolutionary way, Dawkins changed the fine tuning problem into the multiverse theory for which there is no evidence but it satisfies evolutionists and is thus accepted uncritically into folklore.  
 









-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:16 AM on May 2, 2009 | IP
Zucadragon

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester, could you respond to my post, about how Intelligent design admits not doing science even though they keep a certain position ?


 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 12:35 PM on May 2, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester! 1 fallacy per post, please!

Hi Wisp,
John 1:10?
If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting;


We don't consider supernaturalism because there are no reasons.
Everything we've learned so far tells us that there's nothing supernatural.
Your bias is so blind!
My bias is towards evidence.
There is no way for you to know that there’s nothing supernatural.
Whoever said i did know?
You’ve obviously never properly investigated the possibility or you would know how wrong you are.
I've bought dozens of books and conducted hundreds of experiments on God, magic, ESP, telekinesis, metaphysics, alchemy, ghosts, etc etc etc.

Aren't you tired of being wrong?
About me and everything else, i mean.

Do you realize that there is no proof that naturalistic processes could have produced life?
Proof... Man, erase that word from your vocabulary when talking about science. It makes you look less than clever. Specially since it has been pointed out to you many times.

So there, you have faith.
Yes i do. I never said i didn't.

When are you going to post something of worth?

No predictions can be made assuming supernaturalism.
Well there’s one very clear one for a start.
This ought to be interesting...
If supernaturalism were true, we would expect fossils to show clear leaps with very few so-called “intermediates”.
Aaaand it failed to be interesting.

Leaps?

That presumes Evolution.

Mocking you is not fun anymore.

If naturalism were true, we would expect billions of intermediates as one kind turned into another slowly.
Already debunked. Yawn...

It would also be very clear what turned into what.
I'm not sure that it should, but it does.
Evolution is not falsifiable and it is not science as a result.
You've said the same about the supernatural. But you've withheld the conclusion of "not science".

Nevertheless, find me fossils in the wrong order, and Evolution is falsified.

Show me any trait that couldn't have evolved, and Evolution is falsified.

Meh, i won't make that list longer. Your claim is not worth it.

Evolutionists search in vain for the billions of intermediates that there should be and find so very little.
Even a little would be great evidence.
And we find tons.
That little apparently satisfies their need for evidence for evolution because of the philosophical prejudice that overrides reason.
We don't need any evidence for Evolution. Not anymore.
Evolution is the conclusion. It's over. It's now the premise for everything in biology. And it works smoothly.

We only speak of "evidence for Evolution" when talking to creationists.

Evolution  is non-falsifiable. Absolutely everything points to evolution. All the many problems and anomalies also serve as evidence for evolution because all that is required is that we invent an alternate explanation that causes the anomalies to be accepted as evidence as well.
You're projecting.

We learn from anomalies.

Darwinists claim that the mere logical possibility that random mutation and natural selection may in some unknown manner account for a biological system counts in their favour.
No. There's no unknown manner.

They also expect sceptics
Hahaha! You're a skeptic? Hahahahaha!

You believe in unicorns.

You know what? Forget unicorns. You're a creationist. So you can't be skeptic.

No skeptic in the world is a creationist.

Selective skepticism doesn't count.

to try to prove a negative,
That's a widely spread fallacy. That there's this particular impossibility to prove a negative.

You can prove a negative just like anything else.

By proving that "A" is a bird, you're proving that it's not a non-bird. You're proving that it's not a tree.

We can't disprove a teapot in orbit around the Sun between the orbits of Mars and the Earth. Which means we can't prove this positive: And orbital space between Mars and the Earth free of teapots.

ie. to prove that Darwinism is impossible.
We don't expect anything from you.

We could hope though.

In the history of science no successful theory has ever demonstrated that all rival theories are impossible.
You don't have a theory.

And i can demonstrate that Yahweh is a myth.

Rather a theory succeeds by explaining the data better than competing ideas.That’s what ID does.
ID is very blurry, but what i've heard of it is pretty much incompatible with YEC.

And if ID succeeded, and it was demonstrated that the Flying Spaghetti Monster made it all, you would regret having pushed ID.

ID is a joke. It's YEC with less assumptions, to see if it works.
It doesn't work, but even if it did it would blast YEC all the same.

ID explains the bombardier beetle by saying that it was designed like that.

Goodbye Yahweh and his pacific garden of Eden!

Did you know that Behe says that the malaria was designed? Do you agree?

What's ID, if now what Behe says?

The bare assertion that one sort of complex system can turn into another sort of complex system by random mutation and natural selection is not evidence of anything.
Whoever said that assertions are evidence?
Children being taught to uncritically accept such vaporous assertions are being seriously misled.
Projecting. Go to a shrink. He'll tell you.
They are being taught to mistake assertions for experimental demonstrations.
Huh?
That’s you Wisp –a misled indoctrinated product of modern ‘science’.
Can you indoctrinate yourself?

Because nobody ever indoctrinated me about anything. Not even my parents.

I educated myself.

I did a lousy job with History, Geography and Politics, but the rest is fine.

So stop making assumptions about me. You and gluteus never hit.

Only timbrx has managed to guess correctly.

Haha! Because it explain things in a useful way! It allows us to make predictions!

Your turn.
It also allows you to accept absolutely anything as evidence for evolution.
You're projecting again.

It was your turn to say why ID is science. You could have attacked Evolution after defending ID.

And no, i would not accept anything as evidence for Evolution.

If we find animals that don't fit in the evolutionary tree, that's definitely not evidence for Evolution.

If we find fossils in the wrong layer, that's not evidence for Evolution.

Your turn: tell us why ID is science, and what would you take as evidence against it.

Or stop posting. You might as well do that.

If your predictions were important, you would still be wondering where the billions of intermediates were that Darwin predicted would be found and lamented were not found in his time.
Important? I don't get what you're saying.
However, that turned out to be no problem. It is no longer predicted, we just change what we seek into what we find and exclaim out loud how satisfied we are with the ‘evidence’ that is positive in our every field of endeavour.
That Darwin expected something doesn't mean that Evolution predicted it.

Evolution doesn't predict fossils at all!

It predicts that, if you find any animal, dead or alive, it will fit in the Evolutionary tree. And they always have.

A smooth progressive succession of transitionals was speculation.
Nothing wrong with speculation, as long as you realize what it is. This one just turned out to be wrong.

How can you call ID 'science'?
It explains the data better than evolution does.
Oh yeah?

I'll make you a "theory" that explains everything better than Evolution, Creationism or whatever:

The Universe has just being imagined by a supermind since yesterday, including the mental and physical (they are the same actually) record of a long history.
Everything we find is its imagination.

Everything that happens is its imagination.

If the laws of physics are constant, that's its imagination.

If they change tomorrow, it will be its imagination.

There. I explained everything.

Is it science?

It should at the very least be the competing paradigm.
No. There are no reasons to believe in it, and it's perfectly useless. So no.
As I’ve mentioned before, you are right and evolution is true if there are no alternatives.
You're just defining "truth".
That is the bubble you live in.
Projecting.
Evolution is correct even before the evidence is found. That is your philosophical bias.
Evolution has been demonstrated.
How would we test for supernaturalism ?Why bother. We accept so much, in the absence of real testing, for evolution, so why should we be held to higher standards?
Tell us how we test for supernaturalism. Why do you ask me?

Do all the tests you want. Speak only when you have some positives, so you don't waste our time.

How did it determine the lack of need for a creator? By inventing an imaginary scenario for how vast change happened to account for all the varability of life on this planet. Try demonstrating it, then we would have no further argument.
That's a lie. There's nothing you would accept as evidence for Evolution.

If there is, YOU tell us.
What would you accept as evidence for Evolution?

I can answer the same question about YEC easily. You shouldn't even ask. I hope you don't, because it's a silly question.

You want God to conform to your image of him and are disappointed.
Am i?

What are you talking about?
Not that there's any chance that you're right.

Well, except for the size and distance of the Moon and Earth that makes solar eclipses very cool. That's awesome.
Strangely enough, creationists don't use it.
That is only one of many fine-tuned parameters that make chance unlikely. Creationists do use them.
Oh. Go figure.

Do you know how they use it?

Far too much fine tuning out there.
Anthropic principle. Argument from awe. Argument from ignorance. Sharpshooter fallacy.

Even you are fine tuned to keep on existing
Well, of course.
Also to keep on reproducing.

Like my parents, my grandparents, my great grandparents... Every single one of them managed to reproduce.

Find me a single organism that, free of mistakes, is not finely tuned to help it's genes, and nothing else.

It's all about the genes. We're a temporary vessel for our genes. We defend our genes. That's all we animals do.

In our case we got a massive brain that allows us to break free from our genetic and memetic programing.

Well, not you. You're a slave to your religious memes.

–you may not have noticed because you were too busy accepting that nature and chance didit.
Haha! How could i accept that nature did it before noticing it? HAHAHAHAHA!

Of course in the usual evolutionary way, Dawkins changed the fine tuning problem into the multiverse theory for which there is no evidence but it satisfies evolutionists and is thus accepted uncritically into folklore.
The multiverse doesn't need evidence. It's a concept and an interpretation.

Bah, forget it. You'll never be willing to understand it and i'm not willing to explain it to you.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:39 PM on May 2, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Give it up, Wisp.  

Lester is unable to back up any of the statements he makes with evidence.  He doesn't present any research articles backing his claims.  He says ID explains life better than evolution.  Well, that's nice, but I don't see him presenting anything to show that it is better.  In fact, Lester has presented ZERO, NOTHING, NADA, ZIP evidence backing his claims.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 3:06 PM on May 2, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.