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
     Logical Falacies in Evolution
       Some problems with the evolution theory

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 11:51 AM on January 10, 2010 :
Fencer - didn't you say you go to George Mason University?


Yes, I still have one more week off before classes start. Then the fun begins (both studying and living with the internet connection in my dorm room).


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 6:36 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer - the reason I ask is because I think Robert Hazen is a professor of Earth Science  at George Mason U.  I'm reading a book of his right now - 'Genesis: Scientific Quest for Life's Origins'.  

You're going to a cool school if you have people like him there!  :0)


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 8:29 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I looked him up and he does teach in the Earth Science department. Although, he is only teaching one course this semester called "UNIV 301: Great Ideas in Science"
"A non-technical introduction to the ideas that have shaped the growth of science. The idea behind each major advance is treated in its historical context, with special attention to its importance in mankind's understanding of the nature of the universe. Examples are taken from the physical, geological, and biological sciences."

There are still 56 slots open in the course, if I had courses to spare I'd sign up, he is apparently a really good teacher and an easy grader.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 10:54 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, that is so cool.  He noted in his book that he was dissastified with the regular choices non-science majors were offered in getting their science breadth requirements.  He felt that an overview of science would be much better for non-science majors than for them to take, say, a Chem or Bio 101 class.  Offer something to give people a big picture sample of what science is all about.  Sounds like a good class.

I'm glad to see that he has followed through with his idea.  It sounds like he does research work in the abiogenesis area.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:14 PM on January 10, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The giraffe has a huge neck (obviously).
Not when it was molecule sized (right after the Big Bang).
In that huge neck is a lot of muscles, and a whole lotta' blood.  What happens when the giraffe bends over for a drink?  Well gravity does it's thing and the blood rushes down it's neck into it's head.  This would put any other animal in a coma, or at the very least knock it out.  Instead, the giraffe locks out his head from his neck.  However, the giraffe's brain would die without any blood? So what does it do?  Well it has a tissue in it's head that acts like a sponge.  The sponge soaks up a certain amount of the blood before blocking out the rest.  Then it feeds the brain that blood until it has resumed it's upright position.
Intelligently designed, huh?


Where is your god now?


(Edited by wisp 1/11/2010 at 02:41 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: 02:36 AM on January 11, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 11:14 PM on January 10, 2010 :
Oh, that is so cool.  He noted in his book that he was dissastified with the regular choices non-science majors were offered in getting their science breadth requirements.  He felt that an overview of science would be much better for non-science majors than for them to take, say, a Chem or Bio 101 class.  Offer something to give people a big picture sample of what science is all about.  Sounds like a good class.

I'm glad to see that he has followed through with his idea.  It sounds like he does research work in the abiogenesis area.


I agree with him. I happen to be a biology major, so I get a lot of science either way. I finished a 2 semester intro to both biology and astronomy (most majors require a 2 semester science course), and while I learned a lot, I was disappointed in the amount of basic scientific literacy they emphasize. Although, it is worse in the social science, I also to into to psychology. I think it would be beneficial to both non-science majors and science majors to have a course that outlines basic scientific principles and theories. Obviously non-science majors would benefit more, but I think it would be good for science majors too.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 02:49 AM on January 11, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Fencer27 at 02:49 AM on January 11, 2010 :
Quote from orion at 11:14 PM on January 10, 2010 :
Oh, that is so cool.  He noted in his book that he was dissastified with the regular choices non-science majors were offered in getting their science breadth requirements.  He felt that an overview of science would be much better for non-science majors than for them to take, say, a Chem or Bio 101 class.  Offer something to give people a big picture sample of what science is all about.  Sounds like a good class.

I'm glad to see that he has followed through with his idea.  It sounds like he does research work in the abiogenesis area.


I agree with him. I happen to be a biology major, so I get a lot of science either way. I finished a 2 semester intro to both biology and astronomy (most majors require a 2 semester science course), and while I learned a lot, I was disappointed in the amount of basic scientific literacy they emphasize. Although, it is worse in the social science, I also to into to psychology. I think it would be beneficial to both non-science majors and science majors to have a course that outlines basic scientific principles and theories. Obviously non-science majors would benefit more, but I think it would be good for science majors too.



Definitely.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 08:23 AM on January 11, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood Apparently, someone does not realize that 'an atmosphere' is a measure of PRESSURE, not an indication that there are two layers.


Nonetheless, 2 atmospheres of pressure would apparently account for the monstrously large insect fossils that have been found. Something to do with the volume to surface area ratio. Two atmospheres allows for far greater growth and I have heard experiments have been done cultivating huge plants using greater than normal atmospheric pressure. I have no sources unfortunately Sure you could look it up though.

Orion APP - if you find the courage to let yourself do it, read about real evolution someday.  It's really quite a facinating subject.  Very cool.  You will even find that the evidence that supports it IS very logical.  And accepting evolution doesn't mean you have to deny God.


That’s true. You don’t have to deny God, you only need to deny that God’s Word is true. A fundamentalist Christian is somebody who says that God’s Word is the truth and does not feel the need to change ‘a day’ into a million or more years to fit in with man’s ‘wisdom.’

(Incidentally a 'fundamentalist' Muslim is one that literally needs to cut your throat or blow you up in order to forcefully spread his religion so that the entire world will be under Sharia law and will bow to Allah. Conflating the two 'fundamentalists' is one of the evolutionists' favorite con tricks designed to strike fear in the hearts of their fellow man lest they should decide not to believe in evolution and so be called a 'fundamentalist'.)



-------
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: 08:49 AM on January 11, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:49 AM on January 11, 2010 :
[

That’s true. You don’t have to deny God, you only need to deny that God’s Word is true. A fundamentalist Christian is somebody who says that God’s Word is the truth and does not feel the need to change ‘a day’ into a million or more years to fit in with man’s ‘wisdom.’



This can be found under the definition of the phrase "holier than thou".


-------
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: 09:24 AM on January 11, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

Nonetheless, 2 atmospheres of pressure would apparently account for the monstrously large insect fossils that have been found. Something to do with the volume to surface area ratio. Two atmospheres allows for far greater growth and I have heard experiments have been done cultivating huge plants using greater than normal atmospheric pressure. I have no sources unfortunately  Sure you could look it up though.


One hypothesis is that higher atmospheric oxygen levels (31 - 35%) allowed insect to attain giant size during the  Carboniferous period 350 mya - 300 mya.  

Why Were Prehistoric Insect Huge?

Personally, I'm very happy there aren't any giant insects around today!  I have enough trouble being freaked out with the little guys we do have.  One exception is spiders - I'm facinated with spiders.  Spiders are cool.  :0)


That’s true. You don’t have to deny God, you only need to deny that God’s Word is true. A fundamentalist Christian is somebody who says that God’s Word is the truth and does not feel the need to change ‘a day’ into a million or more years to fit in with man’s ‘wisdom.’


Lester - But what makes you think that the Bible is the direct word of God?  Seems to me you're relying more on faith than on any supporting evidence.  


(Incidentally a 'fundamentalist' Muslim is one that literally needs to cut your throat or blow you up in order to forcefully spread his religion so that the entire world will be under Sharia law and will bow to Allah. Conflating the two 'fundamentalists' is one of the evolutionists' favorite con tricks designed to strike fear in the hearts of their fellow man lest they should decide not to believe in evolution and so be called a 'fundamentalist'.)


You know what Lester, religious fundamentalism really does have its flaws.  IMO it stuns intellectual growth and imposes its restrictive moral/immoral values on society.  Not to mention it does tend to use the fear factor.  Look at the reign of King GW Bush.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 09:39 AM on January 11, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 11:14 PM on January 10, 2010 :

I'm glad to see that he has followed through with his idea.  It sounds like he does research work in the abiogenesis area.


Indeed he does.  He is a great speaker, too.  He gave a talk at my school last year.



-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:57 AM on January 11, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from aPassionatePlayer at 8:21 PM on January 9, 2010 :

Now here are the fallacies no one has answered:

1: The chances of evolution creating anything capable of life (as I said before) is ridiculous.  Off the scale.  Billions of Billions of zero's would be in that number.  No one can really deny or answer this it would seem.


You are right - that is a fallacy.

Lets see your numbers.  Lets see what they refer to, how they were calculated, what variables and values were used, etc.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:03 PM on January 11, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 12:03 PM on January 11, 2010 :
Quote from aPassionatePlayer at 8:21 PM on January 9, 2010 :

Now here are the fallacies no one has answered:

1: The chances of evolution creating anything capable of life (as I said before) is ridiculous.  Off the scale.  Billions of Billions of zero's would be in that number.  No one can really deny or answer this it would seem.


You are right - that is a fallacy.

Lets see your numbers.  Lets see what they refer to, how they were calculated, what variables and values were used, etc.



I love witty, and accurate, replies!  Right on the mark Derwood.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:08 PM on January 11, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:01 AM on January 10, 2010 :
aPassionatePlayer your pride demands that you discredit me to somehow make your theories more relevant


Nicely put. This is the overwhelming strategy of the evolutionists on this site. They appear to have their little book of insults which they share amongst themselves. Wisp used to sound like Wisp, now he sounds like Derwood so I think Derwood sent him ‘the book’..


"But you're quite wrong about my general understanding of science -I do actually have a doctorate in a field that involves an education in physics, chemistry, material science, as well as general biology, anatomy and physiology. "




I especially like this part:


"I'm not going to tell you which field as it has nothing to do with you but you'll just have to trust me on this. Some of these subjects I have a more in depth knowledge than others but none of my fields of knowledge include evolution in any particular depth except insomuch as I spend all my spare time reading about it."


Now, the person that wrote this has now claimed or implied that he does not have a PhD or EdD.  

That leaves MD.
But why would an MD need classes in botany or material science?


Creationists often embellish and/or fabricate their credentials and their educations and their knowledge base to make it appear as though they understand more than they really do, and then when they quote people like Werner, they demonstrate that they are just hero worshippers and frauds who run away from any real substantive debate.

Insults?  You bet.  I find misrepresentation and intellectual cowardice worthy of scorn.

But please do not mistake my disgust for an ad hominem argument, as you people so often do.  




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:10 PM on January 11, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 02:56 AM on January 10, 2010 :
Hahaha! Well, here i give you more pictorial facts from the same site i got that image from:

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/giants.htm
[/color]

[color=red]
Giant Humans and Dinosaurs




Those are very clearly fakes.

A little trick I learned a couple years ago when a creationist on another board posted a picture of  a skull with horns and claimed it as proof that demons were real - copy and paste the picture into a picture viewer and convert it to a negative image.  I did it with picture above, and the edges of the pasted skeleton become crystal clear (clearer than they are without doing this).

Amazing...


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:17 PM on January 11, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from aPassionatePlayer at 2:43 PM on January 10, 2010 :
lol well I gotta say you people didn't last as long as most people.  You have come to a point where you are purely critical instead of logical.

You have no logic.  None.  At all.  Merely pride.


The delusion is obvious.  That or this was just a Poe.  

Why would we not be criticle when you clearly demonstrated ZERO understanding of ANY of the things you presented, not to mention evolution?

If you are a Poe, Bravo!  






-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:22 PM on January 11, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:49 AM on January 11, 2010 :
Derwood Apparently, someone does not realize that 'an atmosphere' is a measure of PRESSURE, not an indication that there are two layers.


Nonetheless, 2 atmospheres of pressure would apparently account for the monstrously large insect fossils that have been found.

Really?  That must be why down in the ocean depths where there are hundreds of atmospheres of pressure, things are so gigantic...

But why would that matter?

Please explain it to us  with your science background.  Use as much specific scientific terminology as you need to.  

Please xplain WHY doubling the aqtmospheric pressure would produce large insects.

Something to do with the volume to surface area ratio. Two atmospheres allows for far greater growth

How?  Why?


and I have heard experiments have been done cultivating huge plants using greater than normal atmospheric pressure. I have no sources unfortunately Sure you could look it up though.
So could you BEFORE making such wild claims.


"But you're quite wrong about my general understanding of science -I do actually have a doctorate in a field that involves an education in physics, chemistry, material science, as well as general biology, anatomy and physiology. "




I especially like this part:


"I'm not going to tell you which field as it has nothing to do with you but you'll just have to trust me on this. Some of these subjects I have a more in depth knowledge than others but none of my fields of knowledge include evolution in any particular depth except insomuch as I spend all my spare time reading about it."


Now, the person that wrote this has now claimed or implied that he does not have a PhD or EdD.  

That leaves MD.
But why would an MD need classes in botany or material science?




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:28 PM on January 11, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 09:39 AM on January 11, 2010 :
Lester

Nonetheless, 2 atmospheres of pressure would apparently account for the monstrously large insect fossils that have been found. Something to do with the volume to surface area ratio. Two atmospheres allows for far greater growth and I have heard experiments have been done cultivating huge plants using greater than normal atmospheric pressure. I have no sources unfortunately  Sure you could look it up though.


One hypothesis is that higher atmospheric oxygen levels (31 - 35%) allowed insect to attain giant size during the  Carboniferous period 350 mya - 300 mya.  


Shhh!

You blew the punchline!


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:32 PM on January 11, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks for the advice about negative images!

And i don't think APP was a Poe. I invited him to this forum myself. I found him in a heated discussion (i wasn't a part of) on YouTube.

He would be like a full-time Poe.

A Poe would be unbelievable to me, but the high opinion he has on his own knowledge and reasoning skills are quite amazing too.

He's like a super dunning-krugerite. He seems to have more self-confidence than Lester and porkchop put together (but Lester only notices -or imagines- that kind of things in those with a different opinion).

Here's the Wiki article about illusory superiority.

I actually feel bad for the guy, but i think it's best for him to suffer from learning the truth about his cognitive abilities than to suffer from the consequences of trusting them.



-------
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: 2:07 PM on January 11, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

derwood
orion
Lester
Nonetheless, 2 atmospheres of pressure would apparently account for the monstrously large insect fossils that have been found. Something to do with the volume to surface area ratio. Two atmospheres allows for far greater growth and I have heard experiments have been done cultivating huge plants using greater than normal atmospheric pressure. I have no sources unfortunately  Sure you could look it up though.
One hypothesis is that higher atmospheric oxygen levels (31 - 35%) allowed insect to attain giant size during the  Carboniferous period 350 mya - 300 mya.
Shhh!

You blew the punchline!
Hahahaha! Yeah, i was having fun...

But orion is so fair a player that he shows his cards. Which is why everybody trusts him.

It's good to have you, orion. You make reasonable people look nice. ^_^



-------
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: 2:13 PM on January 11, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One hypothesis is that higher atmospheric oxygen levels (31 - 35%) allowed insect to attain giant size during the  Carboniferous period 350 mya - 300 mya.  


Yes I've heard that one too. Can't remember the details though.

Orion Lester- what makes  you think that the Bible is the direct word of God?
Seems to me you are relying more on faith than on any supporting evidence.


The more you learn of the Bible, the more you realize how complex and interwoven it is. It's really a supernatural book in so many ways. You'd have to study it to know what I mean.

What is the difference between my fundamental belief in the Word of God and your fundamental belief in the everchanging ideas of men who believe that there is no God?
Naturalism is your philisophical presupposition, intelligence is mine.
Imposing rules upon science that only allow for natural causes as the cause for anything in existance is a straitjacket on science. It even makes men miss the significance of the obvious code in DNA -it puts blinkers on science and makes it go backward.
IMO naturalism stunts intellectual growth and takes away from our humanity.

Orion Not to mention it does tend to use the fear factor.


Fear factor? I would be far more afraid if I knew we were hurtling through space purely by accident with no-one in charge. If you read the Bible properly, it's ultimately not about fear at all -or at least not in the way you think of fear as terror. Fear as in awesome respect is the type of fear you need for God -he's not the enemy.

There's also nothing wrong with the restrictive moral values of Christianity. It's been put there for your protection the way loving parents give rules for their children to obey. When you break the rules, you put yourself in danger. It's still your choice and God doesn't punish you for your choices you make here, the consequences of your actions are the punishment which you bring upon yourself on this earth.
Eternal separation from God after this life is a punishment you choose for yourself by deceiving yourself into believing that God does not exist while somehow knowing by your conscience and your mental abilities that he must. Your logic and creativity is not possible via random mutations - only a greater mind can create your mind. Mutation and natural selection? I don't think so.

I read a good one the other day -can't remember the source:

"The fool sayeth in his heart 'there is no God.' The wise man sayeth it apparently on 'Larry King Live.'  







-------
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: 2:58 PM on January 11, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:49 AM on January 11, 2010 :
That’s true. You don’t have to deny God, you only need to deny that God’s Word is true.


No, I must disagree with you here. You only need to change your interpretation of the text itself, see it in a different light. And from what I know about the Jewish interpretations (and their culture), such changes in interpretation are not heresy. Far from it, actually.

A fundamentalist Christian is somebody who says that God’s Word is the truth and does not feel the need to change ‘a day’ into a million or more years to fit in with man’s ‘wisdom.’


I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect, has intended us to forgo their usage. Our 'wisdom' and ability to look at the natural world around us, to deduce the nature of the universe, is a God given gift. To waste that gift is foolish, and a shame.

(Incidentally a 'fundamentalist' Muslim is one that literally needs to cut your throat or blow you up in order to forcefully spread his religion so that the entire world will be under Sharia law and will bow to Allah.


I remember something very similar in Christian history. When Christians in the name of God went around literally killing people if they did not convert to Christianity. Besides, most of these Muslim fundies are not interested in converting infidels, but killing God's enemies, protecting their homeland and so on. Not to mention, the foremost authority in the Muslim world (some council that I forget the name of), has declared that the war against the west started by Bin Laden is not a jihad, and explicitly goes against Muslim teachings.

Conflating the two 'fundamentalists' is one of the evolutionists' favorite con tricks designed to strike fear in the hearts of their fellow man lest they should decide not to believe in evolution and so be called a 'fundamentalist'.


I have never seen an evolutionist equate Christian fundamentalism with Islamic fundamentalism. But they are undeniably similar in how they treat their sacred texts and how they approach modern science. I find it odd that you talk about fear against fundamentalists, while many fundamentalists use scare tactics to convert people; 'convert lest ye be cast into eternal hellfire.'


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 5:16 PM on January 11, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer27
Lester10
That’s true. You don’t have to deny God, you only need to deny that God’s Word is true.
No, I must disagree with you here. You only need to change your interpretation of the text itself, see it in a different light.
Yeah. In a light that makes it untrustworthy. Which is quite reasonable, of course.
And from what I know about the Jewish interpretations (and their culture), such changes in interpretation are not heresy. Far from it, actually.
What if the Jews jump off a bridge?
A fundamentalist Christian is somebody who says that God’s Word is the truth and does not feel the need to change ‘a day’ into a million or more years to fit in with man’s ‘wisdom.’
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect, has intended us to forgo their usage. Our 'wisdom' and ability to look at the natural world around us, to deduce the nature of the universe, is a God given gift. To waste that gift is foolish, and a shame.
I'm with you here.

Except i go a little bit further.
Sense, reason and intellect should make you treat the Bible as what it is: an old book of myths and little net wisdom.

I'm with Lester regarding this decision.

No fencing! All the way! Reason, or superstition!



-------
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: 6:00 PM on January 11, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

LESTER'S DODGES:

(hominid classification)

Unicellular organisms to multicellular invertebrates;

Invertebrates to fish



If everything appears fully formed and functional with no evidence of how it got there –for example in the Cambrian and the Ordivician

By the way, it's called "Ordovician".


where the most evidence for gradualism should exist
Says who? Start a thread and elaborate on that, please. Unless you're just tossing empty claims, of course.


How many kinds of marsupials are there?

Define 'kind'.


How can we even trust our evolution produced minds if that is what they are?
We can't. So we have to test, check and double-check. And do double blind studies.
The fact that you don't trust my mind demonstrates that your position is clearly flawed.


Viral insertions are functional and thus not viral after all,
First of all, if that's your claim, open a thread (this one is for definitions) and let's discuss it. Otherwise, hush.

Second: You don't know what the subject is. I meant this:



If they're functional, why does Yahweh arrange them like that? It's like he wanted for us to think that species are related...


goose bumps -design
What for? We have them when we feel cold (as if we had fur), and when we're scared/angry (as if we had fur and wanted to appear bigger, just like any other animal with goose bumps).

If you're going to answer, start a thread.
If not, hush.


vestigiality -garbage,
Does Yahweh produce garbage?

Didn't you say that you had no problem with loss of function? That you were ok with the legless lizard's vestigiality?

Let's see...
Here:

Posted by Lester10, at 07:24 AM on April 5, 2009
How did i guess that the legless lizard would have vestigial legs when i was a teen and didn't know about legless lizards OR vestigial limbs? My correct guess made my trust in that consensus stronger.
Nobody has any problem with loss if information due to mutational corruption. The lizard's original information was corrupted.
You admitted that vestigiality was possible.

Gotcha! =D


comparative anatomy –common creator, homologies –common creator,
http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=55749

Let's discuss it there. And if you don't want to discuss it, don't mention it.

mimicry -design,
Start a thread and present your evidence, or don't mention it.



We've found all of those. Which ones are whales to you?


Remember the majority of scientists used to believe in spontaneous generation for over 2000 years but they were wrong.
Yes. Science demonstrated that they were wrong. Not religion.
Yes, well it was their problem since they made it up in the first place.
Who's 'they'?
Please, answer this one.
I said 'please'.
By the way, love the trilobites but what exactly is your point?
That you acknowledge that they are trilobites. Thank you!

So you admit that they are trilobites, and yet you don't see evidence of gradualism... Your definition of gradualism must be very strange.

Can you guess in what order they have been found in the geological strata? Yeah, you know you can. You know that, whether it is right or wrong, if you assume that the ToE is right you'll guess.


Doesn't creation predict (postdict, actually) that a couple of supercats can turn into lions, tigers, panthers, cheetahs and house cats, and all of that in 4k years?
That’s right. There’s vast ability to diversify built into each ‘kind’s’ genome and speciation appears to have occurred pretty rapidly.
How does it appear so?

I mean, what's your basis?

The fossil record? The Bible? What?


Besides:

You didn't tell me what goose bumps were designed for. You didn't start a thread about the comparative embryology fraud.

You didn't answer what the limitations are in artificial selection.

You negated vestigiality, and i presented an old quote where you had acknowledge it. And now you shut up.

You said "comparative anatomy –common creator" and "homologies –common creator", even though you dropped the subject in the thread i started specifically about that. I mention that you dropped the subject, and you shut up again...
Your dishonesty is tiresome, Lester.

You say you don't have time to answer to long posts. Well, then don't waste your precious time copypasting silly quotes! Don't waste it talking about how imaginative we are!

You said "mimicry -design". Will you defend that claim, or will it be another orphan?
Start a thread if you have any basis.
If you don't, admit it.

You said

No, you’ve forgotten about the gaps in the fossil record and the lack of evidence for macroevolution.

I asked for you to explain it, but you won't.

I've asked you to define 'micro' and 'macro' in such a way that nothing we see falls in between, but you won't.


Lester10
derwood
Consider the part I bolded - I suggest you take an undergraduate comparative vertebrate anatomy course and an actual evolution course.

I might just as well take a course in mythology.

Are you interested in mythology? If so, i don't see why not take a course.

And if you're NOT interested, why claim knowledge on the matter?


Lester
derwood
Another level is that the concept of gradualism does NOT preclude catastophes or relatively fast change
Show me your relatively fast change example of a beneficial mutation that allows survival.It’s no good just to have faith that such things happen.
Er... Aren't you contradicting yourself, Lester? Check this quote:
Doesn't creation predict (postdict, actually) that a couple of supercats can turn into lions, tigers, panthers, cheetahs and house cats, and all of that in 4k years?
That’s right. There’s vast ability to diversify built into each ‘kind’s’ genome and speciation appears to have occurred pretty rapidly.
Actually you believe in a much higher rate of change than we do (that apparently slowed down dramatically and leaving no signs that it was ever that high).


Sorry. You don't know what you're talking about. There's more to an ear than the semicircular canals.
I'm talking about this:

a) regular generalized land mammal
b) pakicetid
c) remingtonocetid/protocetid
d) a modern odontocete

a) and b) look very much alike.
There's a distinct feature present in pakicetids that are not present in any other land mammals though. Only whales have it nowadays. Take a close look.
The tympanic bone isn't connected to the periotic bone (Per), and it's actually thickened into a structure called the involucrum. Basically, the bony structure of the ear is less tightly attached to the skull, and is more free to vibrate in response to sound transmitted through the tissue of the head. The jaw will capture sound.

This is what has been found.

Besides, in c) the ear drum has dwindled, and the malleus is fused to the bone (which is a clear loss if the animal needs to capture sound waves in air).


Also it was a land mammal that walked on its legs. It didn’t swim.
How do you know that? It's you who keeps saying that we can't know anything about an animal by looking at its bones.
You're contradicting yourself.


Gradual change = microevolution? Yes or no?
Not microevolution no.
An answer!! Amazing!

So how is it different?


Doesn't creation predict (postdict, actually) that a couple of supercats can turn into lions, tigers, panthers, cheetahs and house cats, and all of that in 4k years?
That’s right. There’s vast ability to diversify built into each ‘kind’s’ genome and speciation appears to have occurred pretty rapidly.
How does it appear so?
They can reproduce so they are the same kind.
They can? Lions and house cats? Do you know this?


Do rats and rabbits belong in the same kind or not?
Can they produce fertile offspring?
No, but neither do cats and lions (not that i know of). The same goes with donkeys and horses, and you still say they belong to the same kind.


I don't need any fossils to know that.
We have lots, they fit perfectly, but they are not necessary for the ToE to make excellent predictions about traits of the living species.
You don’t have lots, the ones you have are made up. Invented.
You seem to be confused. We were talking about fossils, not about transitionals.


I’ve discussed Tiktaalik with you already.
Yeah, and you dropped the subject, as usual.
No I think you dropped the subject.
That doesn't sound like me at all. If i'm left with nothing to say, i say that i have nothing to say. I'll say 'You're right', or 'I don't know' (which seem to be absent from your vocabulary).
I remember discussing how little one can tell from fossilized bones
And i answered that its eyes were on top, so i know it didn't swim near the surface of deep waters. And that it had elbows that supported weight, so, well, it must have supported weight.

Besides you say that the pakicetus was a land mammal, contradicting your claim that we can't tell things from dead bones.
and how a mistake was made when coelocanth was predicted to be the fish amphibian link except when it was found, it turned out to be all fish after all.
I don't know about this. Can you show me your source?

From your story it appears that they named it before finding it (which seems kinda odd).


(...)since convergent evolution does NOT lead to homology.
According to people who believe in convergent evolution, it does lead to homologous structures by pure chance mutations in different lines altogether.
As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

From Wiki:

Homology
In evolutionary biology, homology refers to any similarity between characteristics of organisms that is due to their shared ancestry.


Will you correct yourself? No, you won't.

So stubborn...

You said
Well when you consider how often homologous structures are apparently unrelated (as evidenced in so-called convergent evolution)
Convergent evolution is NOT evidence that homologous structures are unrelated.
You're saying that we can demonstrate that apples don't have seeds because balloons don't have them.
Look at seals and sea lions –not even related –convergent evolution –but you can barely tell them apart.
Not related? According to whom?


wisp
Lester
wisp
Lester
wisp
Lester
wisp
Lester
The TOE requires life to come from non-living chemicals, it’s an atheistic system
Lester
The ToE, on the other hand assumes abiogenesis and no role for God, so it is an atheistic philosophy.
No more than the Theory of Gravity. And you don't fight it.
There’s nothing atheistic about the theory of gravity.
It doesn't contemplate any gods. Just like the ToE.
And it is just as much a product of God’s as is life.
I agree.
By your 'and' it looks like we've come to an agreement on this issue. Both theories are equally atheistic.
Neither is.
Exactly! Finally!

So, just to be clear (i really hope you don't back away from this realization), you do acknowledge that you were wrong when you wrote the first phrase, right? Or did you just lose track and didn't know what you were talking about?


If feathers didn’t come from scales then scales just went away
Yeah, in many animals they did.

In others they didn't go away entirely.


Take a close look:

You tell us to look around, and that things look designed. You seem quite impressed by the way things look.
With a hand in your heart, tell me if those tails don't look reptilian.



-------
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: 04:41 AM on January 12, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, anyway... This thread should be closed, so it doesn't become another "Numbers".

Some straw men were presented, they were disposed of. The end.

It's not like we have an obligation to defend their silly interpretations of the Theory of Evolution.




-------
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: 08:33 AM on January 12, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 2:58 PM on January 11, 2010 :
One hypothesis is that higher atmospheric oxygen levels (31 - 35%) allowed insect to attain giant size during the  Carboniferous period 350 mya - 300 mya.  


Yes I've heard that one too. Can't remember the details though.


Is it your esteemed opinion that that is the same as "2 atmospheres"?



Orion Lester- what makes  you think that the Bible is the direct word of God?
Seems to me you are relying more on faith than on any supporting evidence.


The more you learn of the Bible, the more you realize how complex and interwoven it is. It's really a supernatural book in so many ways. You'd have to study it to know what I mean.

Right...  Like you studied evolution?


What is the difference between my fundamental belief in the Word of God and your fundamental belief in the everchanging ideas of men who believe that there is no God?

Can't speak for anyone else,  but I'll take the words of 'men' (well, some men) over the ancient supertitiouos MEN who wrote the bible.


Why do you place so much trust in MEN who wrote in a pre-technological, pre-industrial, pre-educational, superstitious time?




Naturalism is your philisophical presupposition, intelligence is mine.

No, supernaturalism, i.e., magic, is yours.

And we've all seen what having that presuppositon does to people.

Imposing rules upon science that only allow for natural causes as the cause for anything in existance is a straitjacket on science.


And allowing the supernatural into science who benefit science how, exactly?

Can a supernaturalist NOT always just say "Well, God did THIS this time, yet over here, He did THIS."?  That is, can not supernatural explanations be inconsistent?  Contradictory?  Superfluous?


It even makes men miss the significance of the obvious code in DNA -it puts blinkers on science and makes it go backward.

What code is that?

You mean the chemical innteractions between certain nucleotides such that they preferentially bind with other specific nucleotides that bind particular amino acids that we refer to as the genetic code?  The code that is NOT universal?

I read a good one the other day -can't remember the source:

"The fool sayeth in his heart 'there is no God.' The wise man sayeth it apparently on 'Larry King Live.'  




And that comes from the bible.  The book, cobbled together by MEN, edited by MEN, interpreted by MEN, wherein we are told of a god, and that the bible is the inspired word of god, and that it is all true because the bible says so...


"But you're quite wrong about my general understanding of science -I do actually have a doctorate in a field that involves an education in physics, chemistry, material science, as well as general biology, anatomy and physiology. "




I especially like this part:


"I'm not going to tell you which field as it has nothing to do with you but you'll just have to trust me on this. Some of these subjects I have a more in depth knowledge than others but none of my fields of knowledge include evolution in any particular depth except insomuch as I spend all my spare time reading about it."


Now, the person that wrote this has now claimed or implied that he does not have a PhD or EdD.  

That leaves MD.
But why would an MD need classes in botany or material science?

I think I smell a poseur...



-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:44 AM on January 12, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

a Passionate Player
Starting with plants, scientists were fascinated as they began to grow many times their original size.  2 Atmospheres of pressure causes things to grow larger.  We are not quite sure why exactly.  However, it's hard to argue with a tank full of 2-3 foot long Piranhas.
Oh... Scientists...


I found aPP's pirañas (those that are hard to argue with). Well, Thunderf00t did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6_o1GxgNMQ

A friend of Kent Hovind grows them in pressurized tanks that don't look pressurized at all (perhaps he discovered stable transparent aluminum, like in the windshields of the Enterprise, from Star Trek).

Edit: Do you know what pressure used to do to chameleons?


It turned them into TRICERATOPS!!!!


Awesome!


Just don't look at the feet. Or the eye cavities. Or the diet. Or just avoid thinking. That should make it easier.










Awesome!






(Edited by wisp 1/13/2010 at 04:04 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: 03:56 AM on January 13, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 6:00 PM on January 11, 2010 :
Fencer27No, I must disagree with you here. You only need to change your interpretation of the text itself, see it in a different light.
[color=teal]Yeah. In a light that makes it untrustworthy. Which is quite reasonable, of course.


Not exactly what I meant, but to each his own.

And from what I know about the Jewish interpretations (and their culture), such changes in interpretation are not heresy. Far from it, actually.
What if the Jews jump off a bridge?


Well, it would suck for them at the end of the fall. My point is that the interpretations that the Jews had were not literal, and since they wrote it, why read it literally when they didn't? Another example is when Buddha talked about encountering the six sons and daughters of Mar. It is clear that Buddha is not talking about six literal entities coming to him, so why should we?

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect, has intended us to forgo their usage. Our 'wisdom' and ability to look at the natural world around us, to deduce the nature of the universe, is a God given gift. To waste that gift is foolish, and a shame.
I'm with you here.

Except i go a little bit further.
Sense, reason and intellect should make you treat the Bible as what it is: an old book of myths and little net wisdom.


The wisdom is there, but maybe I'm just too young to tell that it is true wisdom, and that anyone with half a brain would gain that wisdom after becoming a little seasoned.

I'm with Lester regarding this decision.

No fencing! All the way! Reason, or superstition!


Why not reasoned superstition! I'll have my cake and eat it too, I'm a greedy person that way.

(Edited by Fencer27 1/13/2010 at 04:39 AM).


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 04:38 AM on January 13, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 03:56 AM on January 13, 2010 :



Now that is a god you don't want to mess with. Forget empty condemnations of eternal hellfire when this god can just sick a huge ass dino on you in this world.

(Edited by Fencer27 1/13/2010 at 04:49 AM).


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 04:48 AM on January 13, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

FencerYou only need to change your interpretation of the text itself, see it in a different light. And from what I know about the Jewish interpretations (and their culture), such changes in interpretation are not heresy.


Unfortunately the Jews also missed their messiah. There are enough Hebrew scholars that testify to the fact that their religious text of Genesis very clearly states that God made the world, and all that is in it, in 6 days and that that is undoubtably the message being conveyed. The fact that many of them don’t believe that it is true, is a personal choice they have taken - in much the same vein as the evolutionist has chosen uniformatarianism in order to interpret sedimentary rock layers –it’s a bias. Those Jews are relying on having to tell God in the hereafter that they were sure that ‘the first day, morning and evening’ meant ‘many millions of years’ because they took the atheist evolutionists’ word for it.
Each to his own I suppose.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect, has intended us to forgo their usage.


I couldn’t agree more and to believe that one day means millions or hundreds of millions of years is to be guilty of foregoing all of the above. What is the point of the use of coded language where words mean something, if they selectively don’t mean what they are supposed to mean? What if a ‘day’ actually means a millisecond with the morning being a half a millisecond and the evening being the other half a millisecond? I’ll bet that is actually what God was meaning when he got his scribes to write that ‘day’ word down. You see, it's easy to say it means whatever you would prefer.

Our 'wisdom' and ability to look at the natural world around us, to deduce the nature of the universe, is a God given gift. To waste that gift is foolish, and a shame.


Indeed.

I remember something very similar in Christian history. When Christians in the name of God went around literally killing people if they did not convert to Christianity.


They were like the evolutionists who think that a ‘day’ means a million years or more, they selectively decided that ‘love your enemy' actually meant ‘mow them down when you find them.'
“You will know them by their fruit.” Those Christians killing people in the name of the Lord were frauds or cult members, wolves in sheeps clothing. They had their own agenda and, as many people do, used the Bible when and where it suited them as the justification of their actions.

Besides, most of these Muslim fundies are not interested in converting infidels, but killing God's enemies, protecting their homeland and so on.


Yes they are not fundamentalists, they are the silent majority most likely but whatever happened to the silent German majority when Hitler decided to jump into action? The silent majority needs to condemn their fundamentalist counterparts but they will more likely work with them come the revolution because they fear Allah. Understandably - Allah expects a great deal of them.

Not to mention, the foremost authority in the Muslim world (some council that I forget the name of), has declared that the war against the west started by Bin Laden is not a jihad, and explicitly goes against Muslim teachings.


Find your source. All that is, is platitudes to keep people like you being nice to your muslim neighbours while they rally their forces against the Western world. As evidenced by 911 and all the many beheadings and bombings and wars around the world in the name of Allah’s total domination, The Koran says explicitly to slit their throats if they won’t convert. Every mosque put up in whatever country is the advance of Islam, with their main objective being total world domination. Time to read the Koran. The nice parts were only at the beginning when Mohammed was busy currying favour with the Jews and the Christians in an attempt to convert them. When they wouldn’t, Mohammed’s writings became increasingly violent.
The pacifists of the world only quote the early niceties, they ignore the rest at their peril. Read Walid Shoebat’s book called “Why we hate you and want to Kill you.” (something like that). He’s an ex-fundamentalist Muslim and he knows what the real state of affairs, the real agenda, 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: 05:54 AM on January 13, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer
wisp
Fencer
No, I must disagree with you here. You only need to change your interpretation of the text itself, see it in a different light.
Yeah. In a light that makes it untrustworthy. Which is quite reasonable, of course.
Not exactly what I meant, but to each his own.
Of course that's not what you meant. But i'm with Lester on this one.

You don't trust the Bible, Fencer.

And from what I know about the Jewish interpretations (and their culture), such changes in interpretation are not heresy. Far from it, actually.
What if the Jews jump off a bridge?
Well, it would suck for them at the end of the fall. My point is that the interpretations that the Jews had were not literal, and since they wrote it, why read it literally when they didn't?
If you admit that they wrote it without divine inspiration, then the real point is, why read it?

Another example is when Buddha talked about encountering the six sons and daughters of Mar. It is clear that Buddha is not talking about six literal entities coming to him, so why should we?
We shouldn't, of course. But Buddhism doesn't depend on any literal interpretation of anything.

Christianity does.

If you don't like that, then choose Buddhism.

Buddhists would be ok with you being a Christian too.

Christians wouldn't, though.

But, since you like to have your cake and eat it too, you could be a bad Christian (which you already are anyway) AND a good Buddhist. Better chances to achieve salvation/nirvana/illumination/whatever!

Win-win!

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect, has intended us to forgo their usage. Our 'wisdom' and ability to look at the natural world around us, to deduce the nature of the universe, is a God given gift. To waste that gift is foolish, and a shame.
I'm with you here.

Except i go a little bit further.
Sense, reason and intellect should make you treat the Bible as what it is: an old book of myths and little net wisdom.
The wisdom is there, but maybe I'm just too young to tell that it is true wisdom, and that anyone with half a brain would gain that wisdom after becoming a little seasoned.
"The wisdom is there" you say. But we can only recognize it and separate it from the crap with our own wisdom. So we don't need the Bible.

In fact, those with less wisdom can be more infected by the crap than enlightened by the wisdom, so they might go ahead and do the things i list down there.




Lester
The Koran says explicitly to slit their throats if they won’t convert.
You must kill those who worship another god.  Exodus 22:20

Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own.  Deuteronomy 13:6-10

Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you.  Deuteronomy 13:12-16

Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own.  Deuteronomy 17:2-7

Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13

Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20


(Edited by wisp 1/13/2010 at 07:45 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: 07:23 AM on January 13, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood Can't speak for anyone else,  but I'll take the words of 'men' (well, some men) over the ancient supertitiouos MEN who wrote the bible.


How do we know they were superstitious men –or is that just your bias?

Derwood Why do you place so much trust in MEN who wrote in a pre-technological, pre-industrial, pre-educational, superstitious time?


There appears to be a lot of evidence that these were not cavemen but intelligent human beings. You have been watching too many Fred Flintstone reruns –your whole view of reality between Flintstone and evolution is warped.

No, supernaturalism, i.e., magic, is yours.


Intelligence –in whatever form.

And allowing the supernatural into science who benefit science how, exactly?


By giving an alternative explanation for origins; by not enforcing the dogma that natural law alone had to be responsible ‘because we say so’. Science is supposed to be observable and repeatable so evolution is not really science in the first place, is it? It is a religious interpetation of where we came from – otherwise known as a big fat guess based on our preferences arrived at while ignoring the evidence for an intelligent cause.

What code is that?


The ‘genetic code’ –even evolutionists call it that, it’s undeniably a code so lets not pretend not to notice.

You mean the chemical innteractions between certain nucleotides such that they preferentially bind with other specific nucleotides that bind particular amino acids that we refer to as the genetic code?


No, the one where there is complexity and specificity and a message that stands for other elements outside of the nucleus that are coded for and which get together to form specific proteins that all have a definite function and are interrelated.
You say there’s preferential binding but you know that that is only between AT and GC. There’s no preference for what binds to the sugar-phosphate backbone of the molecule in the first place –they are lined up like letters specifying proteins with function – in other words, they have a purpose. That’s not just chemistry.









-------
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: 07:58 AM on January 13, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Good, Lester. A fresh start. Nobody noticed.


-------
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: 09:25 AM on January 13, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
How do we know they were superstitious men –or is that just your bias?
How about because they believed in witches, and divination, and that the colors of the offspring of animals depend on what they were looking at while they fucked?

You don't notice the superstitions, but that's because you're still superstitious.


So you don't count.



-------
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: 09:42 AM on January 13, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Christianity promotes superstition. It preys on the children.



]Those kids with leukemia must be really bad.

Damn... I was about to post an illustrating image, but got too sad...


(Edited by wisp 1/13/2010 at 12:34 PM).


-------
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: 12:33 PM on January 13, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

Fencer

I remember something very similar in Christian history. When Christians in the name of God went around literally killing people if they did not convert to Christianity.

They were like the evolutionists who think that a ‘day’ means a million years or more, they selectively decided that ‘love your enemy' actually meant ‘mow them down when you find them.'
“You will know them by their fruit.” Those Christians killing people in the name of the Lord were frauds or cult members, wolves in sheeps clothing. They had their own agenda and, as many people do, used the Bible when and where it suited them as the justification of their actions.


Lester - you really don't have a clue, do you.

From Judges, in the Bible.  God condoning murder and rape.  Oh yes, what a loving God you follow.  What nice ethics the Bible teaches us!
So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children.  "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin."  Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.


Lester

All that is, is platitudes to keep people like you being nice to your muslim neighbours while they rally their forces against the Western world. As evidenced by 911 and all the many beheadings and bombings and wars around the world in the name of Allah’s total domination, The Koran says explicitly to slit their throats if they won’t convert. Every mosque put up in whatever country is the advance of Islam, with their main objective being total world domination. Time to read the Koran. The nice parts were only at the beginning when Mohammed was busy currying favour with the Jews and the Christians in an attempt to convert them. When they wouldn’t, Mohammed’s writings became increasingly violent.
The pacifists of the world only quote the early niceties, they ignore the rest at their peril. Read Walid Shoebat’s book called “Why we hate you and want to Kill you.” (something like that). He’s an ex-fundamentalist Muslim and he knows what the real state of affairs, the real agenda, is.


Geez - what a hypocrite you are.  Try reading your own Bible and see all the evil things that are written there - God's words, as you so often are eager to point out.  

I know some Muslims and they are very nice people.  Don't conflate 911, or the other altrocities you mention, with all Muslims Lester.  

(Edited by orion 1/13/2010 at 7:38 PM).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:04 PM on January 13, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:58 AM on January 13, 2010 :
Derwood Can't speak for anyone else,  but I'll take the words of 'men' (well, some men) over the ancient supertitiouos MEN who wrote the bible.


How do we know they were superstitious men –or is that just your bias?


Do you really think  that the folks in those days were NOT supersitious?  If so, then why the burnt offering?  Why the ever-present numerology?  Why the weird rituals and such?



Derwood Why do you place so much trust in MEN who wrote in a pre-technological, pre-industrial, pre-educational, superstitious time?


There appears to be a lot of evidence that these were not cavemen but intelligent human beings.


They were VERY intelligent people, but intelligence devoid of a knowledge base is wasted.  If they were so intelligent, why do you suppose they engaged in sacrifices and rituals and numerology?

You have been watching too many Fred Flintstone reruns –your whole view of reality between Flintstone and evolution is warped.

So sorry - I am not the one that thinks people in bible times had dinosaurs as pets, ala The Flintstones - why the projection?  Afraid to face facts?

No, supernaturalism, i.e., magic, is yours.


Intelligence –in whatever form.


What is that supposed to mean exactly?


And allowing the supernatural into science who benefit science how, exactly?


By giving an alternative explanation for origins;

Um... Evolution IS the alternative explanation - the one based on evidence and inferrence, as opposed to what you accuse US of down there...

And you did not answer - Who would this benefit?  How many creationists have discovered, desribed and phenomena in the past 30 years?  

by not enforcing the dogma that natural law alone had to be responsible ‘because we say so’.

It is not because we say so, it is because only the natural is open to any real examination.
And, of course, it is not naturalists who declare the words in certain editions of certain texts to be 100% truth.

Science is supposed to be observable and repeatable

So you are admitting that supernaturalism has no way to be investigated scientifically?

Thanks!
so evolution is not really science in the first place, is it?

For someone who claims a science-related 'doctorate':

"But you're quite wrong about my general understanding of science -I do actually have a doctorate in a field that involves an education in physics, chemistry, material science, as well as general biology, anatomy and physiology. "

I especially like this part:


"I'm not going to tell you which field as it has nothing to do with you but you'll just have to trust me on this. Some of these subjects I have a more in depth knowledge than others but none of my fields of knowledge include evolution in any particular depth except insomuch as I spend all my spare time reading about it."


Now, the person that wrote this has now claimed or implied that he does not have a PhD or EdD.  

That leaves MD.
But why would an MD need classes in botany or material science?

...you sure have no clue what 'science' actually is.

Can you "repeat" a volcanic explosion?  Can you "repeat" any specific particular event?

NO.

Can you "observe" sub-atomic particles?
Can you "observe" chemical reactions?

NO.

The repeatability aspect of science involves the repeatability of the EXPERIMENTS performed investigating a phenomenon, NOT the actual events themselves (how stupid is that?)!  And the observability of a phenomenon does not always mean direct real-time observation, it also refers to observing effects/outcomes of events.


It is a religious interpetation of where we came from – otherwise known as a big fat guess based on our preferences arrived at while ignoring the evidence for an intelligent cause.


What IS you evidence for "an intelligent cause"?

I mean besides spreading falsehoods about that which you disagree with?


What code is that?


The ‘genetic code’ –even evolutionists call it that, it’s undeniably a code so lets not pretend not to notice.

Yes, we call it a code.  What else should it be called?  Perhaps we should have invented a new word to avoid confusing people who look at everything literally.


You mean the chemical innteractions between certain nucleotides such that they preferentially bind with other specific nucleotides that bind particular amino acids that we refer to as the genetic code?


No, the one where there is complexity and specificity and a message that stands for other elements outside of the nucleus that are coded for and which get together to form specific proteins that all have a definite function and are interrelated.

Oh, sorry - what you just described is not the genetic code.

This is:



Surely, you knew at least that?

You say there’s preferential binding but you know that that is only between AT and GC.

Yes, I know.  But I thought that you actually knkew what the genetic code is.  The genetic code only describes the interactions between triplets/codons/anti-codons, not what you referred to aboce.


There’s no preference for what binds to the sugar-phosphate backbone of the molecule in the first place –they are lined up like letters specifying proteins with function – in other words, they have a purpose.

Yup - lined up such that ANY possible combination of 3 nucleotides will produce a codon that can bind to a particualt tRNA with a complementary anticodon.  
Not all such arrangements, however, do that.  Only about 2% of the genome actually produces proteins.  Surely you knew that?


That’s not just chemistry.

Unless/until there is any actual evidence to the contrary, the only logical, scientific conclusion is, yes it is.


Shame you did not address the '2 atmospheres' comedy.

And I see some more examples of the bible-worshipper apparently ignoring or 'specially interpreting' pasages that wouild make their object of worship less godly than they need it to be...




(Edited by derwood 1/13/2010 at 2:15 PM).

(Edited by derwood 1/13/2010 at 2:20 PM).


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:12 PM on January 13, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:54 AM on January 13, 2010 :
Unfortunately the Jews also missed their messiah.


Which is actually a prophesy I think, although I don't recall which scripture. I'll have to ask around if you want it.

There are enough Hebrew scholars that testify to the fact that their religious text of Genesis very clearly states that God made the world, and all that is in it, in 6 days and that that is undoubtably the message being conveyed.


Those that do are of the Orthodox and Ultra Orthodox sects, which are no where near the majority. If my memory serves me well it is less than 10%! Not to mention the Sadducess interpreted the Bible very literally, and died out completely very early (like beginning of 2nd century A.D.) in favor of Rabbinic Judaism which is older and treats the Bible much more metaphorically. Also, Judaism has consistently supported evolution more than Christianity, and much earlier than Christianity as well. And I'm not talking about some random Rabbi, but big name Jewish scholars and clergy of the time proclaiming that evolution in no way contradicts Genesis. Rather, they describe evolution as a beautiful and enlightening theory that sheds light into the creative nature of God Himself, and enriches our understanding of the divine and how He uses natural mechanisms to achieve His will.  

in much the same vein as the evolutionist has chosen uniformatarianism in order to interpret sedimentary rock layers –it’s a bias. Those Jews are relying on having to tell God in the hereafter that they were sure that ‘the first day, morning and evening’ meant ‘many millions of years’ because they took the atheist evolutionists’ word for it.
Each to his own I suppose.


I think (I could be wrong), but the Jewish interpretation of the days in Genesis are not the 'day is an age' theory. Rather it is symbolic of something else entirely, unfortunately I'm not sure what that is.

I couldn’t agree more and to believe that one day means millions or hundreds of millions of years is to be guilty of foregoing all of the above. What is the point of the use of coded language where words mean something, if they selectively don’t mean what they are supposed to mean? What if a ‘day’ actually means a millisecond with the morning being a half a millisecond and the evening being the other half a millisecond? I’ll bet that is actually what God was meaning when he got his scribes to write that ‘day’ word down. You see, it's easy to say it means whatever you would prefer.


I hope you know that the Hebrew word used to mean "day" in Genesis is "yom", which means an indeterminate amount of time. Yet in the context of Genesis it is referring to symbolic days that have no bearing on the physical universe.

They were like the evolutionists who think that a ‘day’ means a million years or more, they selectively decided that ‘love your enemy' actually meant ‘mow them down when you find them.'
“You will know them by their fruit.” Those Christians killing people in the name of the Lord were frauds or cult members, wolves in sheeps clothing. They had their own agenda and, as many people do, used the Bible when and where it suited them as the justification of their actions.


As Orion pointed out, the Bible explicitly talks about people (from God's orders) that went around killing and raping people. I was actually thinking of the crusades, in which many people were held at sword point and if they did not convert they would have been killed on site. Perhaps Romans 9:21 was going through their heads as well. "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?" Perhaps those killed were vessels for dishonor, so that those who did convert could be made vessels of honor. And of course there are numerous accounts of Christians who practiced hatred and bigotry, perhaps most noticeable in the U.S. is the infamous KKK.

Yes they are not fundamentalists, they are the silent majority most likely but whatever happened to the silent German majority when Hitler decided to jump into action? The silent majority needs to condemn their fundamentalist counterparts but they will more likely work with them come the revolution because they fear Allah. Understandably - Allah expects a great deal of them.


Right now, unfortunately, the radical fundamentalists/terrorists in the Middle East are growing in numbers. This is due to prolonged involvement of the U.S. and things still remaining horrible and in many cases getting worse. That, and the terrorist organizations are very affective in propagating an effective propaganda to the citizens of various countries in the Middle East. This is easily seen when we first entered and the vast majority of people said that violence against the U.S. is not right, and now I believe it is less than 50%.

Find your source. All that is, is platitudes to keep people like you being nice to your muslim neighbours while they rally their forces against the Western world. As evidenced by 911 and all the many beheadings and bombings and wars around the world in the name of Allah’s total domination, The Koran says explicitly to slit their throats if they won’t convert. Every mosque put up in whatever country is the advance of Islam, with their main objective being total world domination. Time to read the Koran. The nice parts were only at the beginning when Mohammed was busy currying favour with the Jews and the Christians in an attempt to convert them. When they wouldn’t, Mohammed’s writings became increasingly violent.
The pacifists of the world only quote the early niceties, they ignore the rest at their peril. Read Walid Shoebat’s book called “Why we hate you and want to Kill you.” (something like that). He’s an ex-fundamentalist Muslim and he knows what the real state of affairs, the real agenda, is.


It is somewhat hard to find the exact source as I don't remember the name, although it is from some Muslim university. I was told this by my religious studies professor, although he views Genesis as myth, so I'm not sure you can trust him. I have no doubt that the fundamentalist terrorists are misinterpreting their sacred text, as I know many Muslims from high school and college. It is unanimous from all of them that Christians are considered "people of the book" and are not to be harmed for their religion. This is actually demonstrated in history before the crusades, when many Christians lived in the Middle East where all the Muslims were. They got along perfectly well and peaceful. The only thing that was really different is that the Christians had to pay an extra tax to the government that was equal to what the Muslims payed to the Mosques which was given to the government for essentially helping out the poor (as this is one of the five pillars of Islam). I'm also not sure what you mean by the Qur'an starts off nice, then gets more and more violent as Muhammad got frustrated. I say this because the Qur'an isn't divided into parts based on order of revelation, but the length of the suras (chapters). With the longest in the front, and the shortest in the back.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 2:27 PM on January 13, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood - right on the mark, as always.

Fencer - good post.  I like your point of view.  Hmmm, I would like to see a poll of the religious scholars of their take on Genesis.  My guess is that those from mainstream schools would side with your religious studies professor.  Not that they would deny God.  Just that they would see Genesis for what it really is - an attempt by early civilization to explain their origins.  As Derwood noted, the writers of the Bible were surely intelligent.  But they were constraint by the limited knowledge of their tiimes.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 4:53 PM on January 13, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 4:53 PM on January 13, 2010 :
Fencer - good post.  I like your point of view.  Hmmm, I would like to see a poll of the religious scholars of their take on Genesis.  My guess is that those from mainstream schools would side with your religious studies professor.  Not that they would deny God.  Just that they would see Genesis for what it really is - an attempt by early civilization to explain their origins.  As Derwood noted, the writers of the Bible were surely intelligent.  But they were constraint by the limited knowledge of their tiimes.


I agree, and strangely enough my religion professor is a Christian, and apparently "myth" is the academic word for any story of origins presented by any religion.

I looked it up and the percentage of Jews who identify themselves as Orthodox is really 15-20%. But there is even acceptance of Darwin with in the Orthodox sect as well! From wiki on Orthodox and evolution

The Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) has "maintained that evolutionary theory, properly understood, is not incompatible with belief in a Divine Creator, nor with the first 2 chapters of Genesis." Prominent Orthodox rabbis who have affirmed that the world is older, and that life has evolved over time include Israel Lipschitz, Sholom Mordechai Schwadron (the MaHaRSHaM) (1835-1911), Zvi Hirsch Chajes(1805-1855) and Abraham Isaac Kook (1865–1935). These rabbis proposed their own versions of theistic evolution, in which the world is older, and that life does evolve over time in accord with natural law, painting natural law as the process by which God drives the world."


I would like to point out that while there has been resistance of evolution in Judaism, it got support from the Orthodox Church very early on.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 12:01 AM on January 14, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

DerwoodIt is not because we say so, it is because only the natural is open to any real examination.
And, of course, it is not naturalists who declare the words in certain editions of certain texts to be 100% truth.


Origins is beyond methodological naturalism –so why infringe on the subject with your metaphysical naturalism?

Naturalists are the ones insisting that everything can be and has to be explained in terms of natural law. So what do we do about the genetic code?

So you are admitting that supernaturalism has no way to be investigated scientifically?


We cannot detect the supernatural entity but we can infer intelligence – look at the genetic code. Allowing for natural law only for the genesis of the code is using your blinkers to keep yourself stupid. You can’t see it because you don’t wish to.

And the observability of a phenomenon does not always mean direct real-time observation, it also refers to observing effects/outcomes of events.


Yes and then you decide what happened. But if you are dedicated to the presupposition of uniformatarianism and you absolutely will not allow for a flood, your interpretation of the evidence is limited to that which you wish to find and have already decided from the outset. We all have our prejudices, don’t we.

What IS you evidence for "an intelligent cause"?


The genetic code.
Life.

Yes, we call it a code.  What else should it be called?  Perhaps we should have invented a new word to avoid confusing people who look at everything literally.


Codes require intelligent planning so if it isn’t a code, why call it that? It’s like Dawkins dilemma –‘things may look designed but I’m here to explain why that appearance is merely illusory.”
Thank-you Richard for clarifying.

Oh, sorry - what you just described is not the genetic code.


Your insert is missing here –why don’t you clarify.

Yup - lined up such that ANY possible combination of 3 nucleotides will produce a codon that can bind to a particualt tRNA with a complementary anticodon.


But not any arrangement of amino acids produces a functional protein. The protein you produce must also be complementary to the shapes of the ones it interacts with –so…. You need a plan –intelligence…you know….

Unless/until there is any actual evidence to the contrary, the only logical, scientific conclusion is, yes it is.


That is the only conclusion you would like to see but that is your philosophical adherence to naturalism getting in your way.

And I see some more examples of the bible-worshipper apparently ignoring or 'specially interpreting' pasages that wouild make their object of worship less godly than they need it to be...


And I see you changing the subject into a ‘bash the Bible’ competition wherever possible. So forget about the Bible then, it is getting in the way of rational thinking on your part. Let’s just talk intelligence and you can leave your excuses about the Bible out of the picture in the meantime.  



-------
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: 04:52 AM on January 16, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester10
Derwood
It is not because we say so, it is because only the natural is open to any real examination.
And, of course, it is not naturalists who declare the words in certain editions of certain texts to be 100% truth.
Origins is beyond methodological naturalism –so why infringe on the subject with your metaphysical naturalism?
That's an oxymoron.

Projection comes naturally to you, but try to think before you write.

Naturalists are the ones insisting that everything can be and has to be explained in terms of natural law.
I don't know what a "naturalist" is. I don't even know what a "natural law" is to you.

I know the term from jurisprudence. Lex natvralis, as opposite to "positive law". And it's (to me) a very stupid concept.

It's analogous to ivs natvrale (natural justice).

If you mean "physical laws", here's a description, from Wikipedia:

Several general properties of physical laws have been identified (see Davies (1992) and Feynman (1965) as noted, although each of the characterizations are not necessarily original to them. Physical laws are:

   * True, at least within their regime of validity. By definition, there have never been repeatable contradicting observations.
   * Universal. They appear to apply everywhere in the universe. (Davies, 1992:82)
   * Simple. They are typically expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. (Davies)
   * Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them. (Davies, 1992:82)
   * Stable. Unchanged since first discovered (although they may have been shown to be approximations of more accurate laws—see "Laws as approximations" below),
   * Omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them (according to observations). (Davies, 1992:83)
   * Generally conservative of quantity. (Feynman, 1965:59)
   * Often expressions of existing homogeneities (symmetries) of space and time. (Feynman)
   * Typically theoretically reversible in time (if non-quantum), although time itself is irreversible. (Feynman)

Do you have any quarrels with any of that?

Natural law is one of many dumb arguments for the existence of God:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-law_argument



So what do we do about the genetic code?
We study it, and you imagine things about it.
Deal?

So you are admitting that supernaturalism has no way to be investigated scientifically?
We cannot detect the supernatural entity but we can infer intelligence – look at the genetic code. Allowing for natural law only for the genesis of the code is using your blinkers to keep yourself stupid. You can’t see it because you don’t wish to.
Instead of "blah blah blah", why don't you present something?

We all have our prejudices, don’t we.
Yeah.

Why don't you debunk ours?

Show us something. Some fact, some research, SOMETHING!

What IS you evidence for "an intelligent cause"?
The genetic code.
Life.
Those things are self-replicators, and, in our experience, they come from replicators.

We observe them emerging constantly without an intelligence. So you have nothing.

Codes require intelligent planning so if it isn’t a code, why call it that?
Because the amount of people who will get confused by that is insignificant.
The amount of smart people who will get confused by that is negligible.

It’s like Dawkins dilemma –‘things may look designed but I’m here to explain why that appearance is merely illusory.”
Thank-you Richard for clarifying.
Thank him indeed.

It's just like explaining why the Moon appears bigger near the horizon.

Well, actually the Moon illusion is stronger. We don't even need to think about it or infer anything to see it.

And I see some more examples of the bible-worshipper apparently ignoring or 'specially interpreting' pasages that wouild make their object of worship less godly than they need it to be...
And I see you changing the subject into a ‘bash the Bible’ competition wherever possible. So forget about the Bible then, it is getting in the way of rational thinking on your part.
Oh, forget about the Bible!! How comfortable!

We keep telling you people to forget about abiogenesis when discussing Evolution, because they're completely separate.

Now, your only reason to believe in YEC is the Bible, and you want to forget about it.

No deal.


(Edited by wisp 1/16/2010 at 06:48 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: 06:46 AM on January 16, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


 Lester  Origins is beyond methodological naturalism –so why infringe on the subject with your metaphysical naturalism?
Wisp    That's an oxymoron.


Or it is a term used to describe the belief that life’s origin can be explained via natural law alone. It’s a religious view that requires faith in the abilities of natural law to produce such things as the genetic code.

Projection comes naturally to you,


And you are apparently assured that I am the only projector at the party

I don't know what a "naturalist" is.


Yes you do. They are the ones automatically discounting intelligence and insisting that life can be explained via natural law alone.

 So what do we do about the genetic code?
We study it, and you imagine things about it.


Projection. We are inferring, you are imagining.

Instead of "blah blah blah", why don't you present something?


How did the nucleotide bases get to be arranged in a way that spells out a useful meaningful functionally integrated protein? You don’t get useful functional proteins without knowing how to spell out the order. Any old order won't do.

The genetic code.
Life.
Those things are self-replicators, and, in our experience, they come from replicators.


Yes, we have replicators and variants of the replicators. That they vary does not begin to explain how the replicators got there in the first place.

We observe them emerging constantly without an intelligence. So you have nothing.


No, they exist. You see them varying once they already are in existence. You cannot thus infer that no intelligence was ever required to get them started.

Because the amount of people who will get confused by that is insignificant.


The only ones that are confused are the ones that think that the word ‘code’ has no real meaning when applied to genetics. It’s the same with the word ‘design’ that is used where there apparently is none.

The amount of smart people who will get confused by that is negligible.


Luckily you’re so smart that you can’t see the problem.

Oh, forget about the Bible!! How comfortable!


Science can’t tell you who the designer is, only that there is one. If the God of the Bible is what makes you deny design, code and intelligence, then let’s just talk about intelligent cause without specifying any particular one –that might help you to see what you are otherwise determinedly blind to.

Now, your only reason to believe in YEC is the Bible, and you want to forget about it.


Sorry that’s not my only reason.



-------
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: 09:14 AM on January 16, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester10
wisp
Lester
Origins is beyond methodological naturalism –so why infringe on the subject with your metaphysical naturalism?
That's an oxymoron.
Or it is a term used to describe the belief that life’s origin can be explained via natural law alone.
Nah. Just an oxymoron.

If it includes the supernatural, THEN it's metaphysical.

If it just includes nothing but the physical, it's not metaphysical.

Try to think before you write.

It’s a religious view that requires faith in the abilities of natural law to produce such things as the genetic code.
Define "religion" and show us how it applies, or you're saying nothing.

Projection comes naturally to you,
And you are apparently assured that I am the only projector at the party
Your fellow creationists don't get anywhere near your level or projection.

I don't know what a "naturalist" is.
Yes you do.
Oh.
They are the ones automatically discounting intelligence and insisting that life can be explained via natural law alone.
Oh. I didn't know that was the definition.

My dictionary says: An advocate of the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms.

It doesn't mention life.

Under my dictionary's definition (you'll have to excuse me for trusting my dictionary more than i trust you), i'm not a naturalist.

Math is very useful to understand the world, and it's not a science.

So what do we do about the genetic code?
We study it, and you imagine things about it.
Projection.
Haha! I knew you'd project projection.

You're the only one who has ever accused me of that.

We are inferring, you are imagining.
Then don't ask me.

Instead of "blah blah blah", why don't you present something?
How did the nucleotide bases get to be arranged in a way that spells out a useful meaningful functionally integrated protein?
I don't think "spells" is the right word (it's a dumb analogy), but, in any case, why don't you present something?

Questions don't count.

You don’t get useful functional proteins without knowing how to spell out the order.
I don't know how to spell out the order. And i do get those proteins. I'd be dead otherwise.

Any old order won't do.
I know. And you made no point.

Why don't you present something?

The genetic code.
Life.
Those things are self-replicators, and, in our experience, they come from replicators.
Yes, we have replicators and variants of the replicators. That they vary does not begin to explain how the replicators got there in the first place.
Uh huh. It doesn't.

So?

Smart people tend to assume abiogenesis. But you can assume divine intervention if you wish. I don't care. It's not relevant to the Theory of Evolution.

We observe them emerging constantly without an intelligence. So you have nothing.
No, they exist.
You didn't refute me.

-We live in the third planet from the Sun.
-No, the sky is blue.

Yes, they exist.
Yes, they keep emerging (from similar or identical replicators)

You see them varying once they already are in existence.
Exactly. Which is what the Theory of Evolution is all about.
You cannot thus infer that no intelligence was ever required to get them started.
You're changing the subject.

Ok, let's say i can't assume that. I don't care. It's just your red herring, and i won't fall for it.


Because the amount of people who will get confused by that is insignificant.
The only ones that are confused are the ones that think that the word ‘code’ has no real meaning when applied to genetics. It’s the same with the word ‘design’ that is used where there apparently is none.
Haha!

Words is all you have... So sad...

The amount of smart people who will get confused by that is negligible.
Luckily you’re so smart that you can’t see the problem.
When you're smart you tend to see MORE things, not less.

Oh, forget about the Bible!! How comfortable!
Science can’t tell you who the designer is, only that there is one.
It can?

Show us.

If the God of the Bible is what makes you deny design, code and intelligence,
It's not. I've had this discussions with dumb Muslims too.

I've already shown you lots of creation myths. Your particular story isn't special.
then let’s just talk about intelligent cause without specifying any particular one –that might help you to see what you are otherwise determinedly blind to.
If you're going to talk about the BEGINNING of life, then don't bother.

OK, intelligence is needed to start the first replicators. OK, some god created cells. Fuck it. I don't care. The Theory of Evolution still stands.

Go and start a forum about Creationism VS Abiogenesis, another about Creationism VS Geology, another about Creationism VS Cosmology, etc.

Now, your only reason to believe in YEC is the Bible, and you want to forget about it.
Sorry that’s not my only reason.
You attack the Big Bang, Geology, Cosmology, Abiogenesis...

What do they have in common? That they disprove your sacred text.

You say you want to leave the Bible aside, and that you want to discuss intelligent design. Well, in that case, why do you oppose Geology?

An old Earth doesn't oppose intelligent design.

I know the answer. Because of your sacred text. So stop playing dumb.


(Edited by wisp 1/16/2010 at 10:11 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: 10:03 AM on January 16, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

wisp
Lester
derwood
Can't speak for anyone else,  but I'll take the words of 'men' (well, some men) over the ancient supertitiouos MEN who wrote the bible.
How do we know they were superstitious men –or is that just your bias?
How about because they believed in witches, and divination, and that the colors of the offspring of animals depend on what they were looking at while they fucked?

You don't notice the superstitions, but that's because you're still superstitious.  
So you don't count.
That's the bad part about maintaining a ridicule position: the other side doesn't need strawmen to ridicule you.

In any case, is this issue settled then?

Or do i need to keep showing you how the way Christianity keeps promoting superstition?




-------
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: 9:09 PM on January 16, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp    If it includes the supernatural, THEN it's metaphysical.

If it just includes nothing but the physical, it's not metaphysical.

Try to think before you write.

OR…that’s what you’d prefer it to mean to exempt you from having to admit that your naturalistic beliefs are a metaphysical belief system.
This is what I got from my dictionary under metaphysics:
relating to metaphysics: relating to the philosophical study of the nature of being and beings or a philosophical system resulting from such study

speculative: based on speculative reasoning and unexamined assumptions that have not been logically examined or confirmed by observation

Your fellow creationists don't get anywhere near your level or projection.

However your fellow evolutionists are all, without exception, excellent at it – thus rendering them blind to their own presuppositions.

I don't know what a "naturalist" is.
 My dictionary says: An advocate of the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms.

Naturalism:

belief in religious truth from nature: a belief that all religious truth is derived from nature and natural causes, and not from revelation

doctrine rejecting spiritual explanations of world: a system of thought that rejects all spiritual and supernatural explanations of the world and holds that science is the sole basis of what can be known

Naturalist –advocate of naturalism

There we go –funny how our dictionaries differ! You must have chosen yours carefully.

Haha! I knew you'd project projection.

You're the only one who has ever accused me of that.


I’m probably not the only one that has noticed though.

How did the nucleotide bases get to be arranged in a way that spells out a useful meaningful functionally integrated protein?
I don't think "spells" is the right word (it's a dumb analogy), but, in any case, why don't you present something?

Questions don't count.


My point is that the four nucleotide bases are lined up, not repetitively but specifically in order to produce a needed protein with a specific function that works together with other necessary and specific functional proteins in order to achieve certain functional objectives –ie they have purpose. You can imagine away that they ordered themselves as did the interrelated proteins that they work together with, but I think of that inference as being exceptionally impractical or even absurd in the extreme.

“Spells out” is exactly the right word since three nucleotide bases stand for one amino-acid in exactly the same way as you would translate words from one language to another. How would these nucleotide bases mutate separately to represent completely different and separate elements in the system. That is how code works, not randomness. Code relates to intelligent planning and purpose.

I don't know how to spell out the order. And i do get those proteins. I'd be dead otherwise.


Luckily your DNA does know how to spell out those proteins and that doesn’t happen by accident. You imagine that only because the obvious inference to intelligence in the system doesn’t go down well with you, so you try to carry on being blind and stupid on purpose.

Imagine if we had kidneys and bladders but no ureters; or bladders and urethras but no kidneys. No plan gives you random elements not co-ordinated systems.

I know. And you made no point.

Why don't you present something?


Why don’t you read Stephen Meyer’s “Signature in the Cell” –it’s causing a big stir. Don’t be influenced by raging reviews by evolutionists who have not even bothered to read the book; rather try the reviews of evolutionists that have read the book and are justifiably impressed. Obviously I wouldn’t ask you to take a creationist’s word for it. I’m still busy with the book and it’s excellent reading so far.

Smart people tend to assume abiogenesis.


And loads of smart people don’t because of things like the genetic code with its information content. You can't base truth on popularity counts, so you need to look to the evidence instead.

I don't care. It's not relevant to the Theory of Evolution.


Unfortunately the theory of evolution assumes origins but can only demonstrate variation. Just because you have a whole bunch of variant finches you might be able to explain variation amongst finches but that doesn’t begin to explain the arrival of the first finch . Imagining abiogenesis and subsequent evolution is an interesting hypothesis, but sadly there is no evidence that it is even remotely possible. It is a metaphysical belief system.

We observe them emerging constantly without an intelligence. So you have nothing.


You observe variants emerging from an original plan but once again you have no evidence for where the original came from.

The amount of smart people who will get confused by that is negligible.

Luckily you’re so smart that you can’t see the problem.
When you're smart you tend to see MORE things, not less.

Not in your case though if you think apparent design can’t be design and requires no designer and if you imagine that code is not code and is just called ‘code’ for fun and again requires no intelligent planning.
Science can’t tell you who the designer is, only that there is one.
It can?

Show us.

Code and design requires intelligence. It is not illusory, it is real. DNA is encoded information that specifies a building plan. Who the planner was cannot be deduced directly from the inference that intelligence is required.
OK, intelligence is needed to start the first replicators. OK, some god created cells. Fuck it. I don't care. The Theory of Evolution still stands.

Not if the intelligence didn’t just make the first cells. Maybe that intelligence created all sorts of things straight off. That would make far more sense of the Cambrian explosion. There is no tree of life in the fossil record. Everything is complex and diverse.
Thus the theory of evolution does NOT still stand.
You attack the Big Bang, Geology, Cosmology, Abiogenesis...

What do they have in common? That they disprove your sacred text.

They only attempt to, they don’t do a good job however.
An old Earth doesn't oppose intelligent design.

No, but not every ID proponent supports an old earth and lots of them have no comment on the age of the earth. It is not part of their argument for intelligence as a requisite for the genesis of life.










-------
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: 07:07 AM on January 17, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Should i wait for you to respond to my last post, and then answer to the whole thing?

If you won't answer, please, say so. So you don't keep me waiting.



-------
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: 08:18 AM on January 17, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So i keep going then?




-------
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: 10:03 AM on January 17, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:52 AM on January 16, 2010 :
DerwoodIt is not because we say so, it is because only the natural is open to any real examination.
And, of course, it is not naturalists who declare the words in certain editions of certain texts to be 100% truth.


Origins is beyond methodological naturalism –so why infringe on the subject with your metaphysical naturalism?

So, it is your position that we CAN know NOTHING of origins?
NOTHING at all?
And apparently you did not think I would remember what this part of the discussion was all about - it wasn't origins, and you know it.  YOU shifted it that way, knowinng that Supernaturalism and those who follow it give us NOTHING.

By the way - I notice you totally ignored the part where you projected your silly notions of earth histroy onto me and I pwned you on it - great tactic - for losers!

You have been watching too many Fred Flintstone reruns –your whole view of reality between Flintstone and evolution is warped.

So sorry - I am not the one that thinks people in bible times had dinosaurs as pets, ala The Flintstones - why the projection?  Afraid to face facts?


Oh - you also forgot to reply to how I more or less showed that the MEN who cribbed the bible were superstitious:

Do you really think  that the folks in those days were NOT supersitious?  If so, then why the burnt offering?  Why the ever-present numerology?  Why the weird rituals and such?


It is almost as if you think that if you just omit something from a reply, we will forgoet about your silly, unsupported assertions.


Naturalists are the ones insisting that everything can be and has to be explained in terms of natural law. So what do we do about the genetic code?

Realize that we call it a code for meta[phorical purposes and try to understand that that by 'code' we are simply referring to the way in which complementary nucleotides will interact.
So you are admitting that supernaturalism has no way to be investigated scientifically?


We cannot detect the supernatural entity but we can infer intelligence – look at the genetic code.

I look at the genetic code and I see haphazard redundancy and cchemical interactions.

You?

Allowing for natural law only for the genesis of the code is using your blinkers to keep yourself stupid. You can’t see it because you don’t wish to.

Explain what you mean by 'code' , because I think you are employing some weired grade-school level connotration of it, maybe something you read in that moron Werner's book?

And the observability of a phenomenon does not always mean direct real-time observation, it also refers to observing effects/outcomes of events.


Yes and then you decide what happened. But if you are dedicated to the presupposition of uniformatarianism and you absolutely will not allow for a flood, your interpretation of the evidence is limited to that which you wish to find and have already decided from the outset.

I see that you understand what uniformitarianism means as well as you understood what phenotype means.

It is funny how you accuse me of having my "... interpretation of the evidence is limited to that which you wish to find and have already decided from the outset" when an old earth, etc., was gleaned FROM the evidence and it is really YOU that already has the conclusion you KNOW is the truth and seek only 'evidence' that supports it.

When are you ever going to present actual EVIDENCE for a YOUNG EARTH??

Cuz whining about radiometric dating and other people's 'presuppositions' ain't it...


We all have our prejudices, don’t we.


Yes, and mine are that people who start with their conclusions then reject/dismiss/misrepresent data and evidence to prop up their preconceived conclusions are dishonest, incompetnet, delusional, and untrustworthy.

What IS you evidence for "an intelligent cause"?


The genetic code.
Life.

You're in what - 5th grade?

Yes, we call it a code.  What else should it be called?  Perhaps we should have invented a new word to avoid confusing people who look at everything literally.


Codes require intelligent planning so if it isn’t a code, why call it that?

HUMAN codes require intelligent HUMAN action.
Creationist conflation only causes confusion.

It’s like Dawkins dilemma –‘things may look designed but I’m here to explain why that appearance is merely illusory.”
Thank-you Richard for clarifying.

And you ignored his explanation - thanks you non-PhD, non-EdD, non-MD 'science-related doctorate'- having YEC!
Oh, sorry - what you just described is not the genetic code.


Your insert is missing here –why don’t you clarify.

I can see the picture - why can't you?

Here is an idea - go to this link to see for the first time what the genetic code really is.
Because you don't seem to know.

Yup - lined up such that ANY possible combination of 3 nucleotides will produce a codon that can bind to a particualt tRNA with a complementary anticodon.


But not any arrangement of amino acids produces a functional protein.


Depends on what you mean by functional.

The protein you produce must also be complementary to the shapes of the ones it interacts with –so…. You need a plan –intelligence…you know….

What protein has a complementary shape to actin?
Keratin?
Integrin?
Aggrecan?

I know only that people with limited knowledge, limited insight, limited exposure to the sciuentific literature, insist that the 'genetic code' requires intelligence.  Human-like intelligence, at that.

Unless/until there is any actual evidence to the contrary, the only logical, scientific conclusion is, yes it is.


That is the only conclusion you would like to see but that is your philosophical adherence to naturalism getting in your way.

Then prove me wrong.

Without relying on assertions, personal incredulity, analogies, and metaphors, please provide some actual EVIDENCE that the 'genetic code' is the result of the action of a non-human intelligence.
Oh, but first, you should probably brush up on what the genetic code actually is.
You were, sort of, describing genotype before.

And I see some more examples of the bible-worshipper apparently ignoring or 'specially interpreting' pasages that wouild make their object of worship less godly than they need it to be...


And I see you changing the subject into a ‘bash the Bible’ competition wherever possible.

Perhaps if you stopped bringing the bible up when the discussion is about reality and science I would not be so tempted.


So forget about the Bible then, it is getting in the way of rational thinking on your part.


Look in the mirror.


Let’s just talk intelligence and you can leave your excuses about the Bible out of the picture in the meantime.  


Fine.

Define it for me.  Tell me how to objectively identify it.  Tell me how it can act without leaving evidence.

Oh - and don't forget about this:

Shame you did not address the '2 atmospheres' comedy.

and

Another one you ran away from - I know it is long, and probably too much for your limited attention span and all...

For Lester the science doctorate-earning creationist to address...


Quote from Lester10 at 12:18 AM on November 8, 2009 :
Derwood
It will never change, no matter what.  Never mind that there are a multitude of different versions of if floating about.  Never mind that there are many internal inconsistencies that prove that it cannot be 100% true and accurate.  Never mind that it contains absurdities and implausabilities that are handwaved away with 'God can do it all' ...


Have you ever read it? This is all the usual tripe that people who have never read it come up with.


Yes, I did read it.  Cover to cover.  And it was shortly after I did actually read it that I concluded that it was nonsense.
The usual tripe from bible worshippers is to claim that those who recognize the internal inconsistencies and nonsese just haven't read it.
In my exoperience, those who reject the bible are the ONLY ones who have read it in any detail.

We know that kind gives rise to kind and no land mammal ever changed into a whale.


No, you assert this to prop up your bible beliefs and reject any evidence to the contrary.


If there was any evidence available to convince us, that would be great.

The evidence is there, as a YEC cultist you are programmed to find any way possible to reject it.  We've all seen you in action on here doing just that.


Your wonderfully confused ‘scientific’ mind asserts that a land mammal’s ears randomly evolved; the ears then happened to suit the water as well as the fins and flippers and blubber and a blowhole, as it turns out, that it later acquired quite by accident. At what point did it decide to go swimming –before or after the blowhole arose by accident? Before or after the fins arose by accident? Did it have to kick its legs to begin with? And the oh so many other coordinated changes all occurred quite by accident? The best mistakes were slowly selected by natural selection and a whale was born. I’m sorry, that’s a fairy tale and I’m sad that you believe it, but unfortunately Santa is no longer part of my life and nor can the frog turn into a prince.(even over millions of years).

Santa is not a part of your life yet Yahweh, who demands foreskins of converts, who mooned Moses, who was one of many deities, who could conjure only a swarm of fleas that Pharoah's magicians couldn't match, who slaughtered untold millions of innocents for doing what he must have known they would do, who cursed us all to extinction, THAT disgusting thing is still part of your life, and belief in that mythical thug drives you to toss out caricatures and argument via personal incredulity to prop up said beliefs.

It is the best you can do, but you are really in no position to comment on my 'scientific mind', as we may recall that you, despite claiming to have a science-related doctorate, did not know what 'phenotype' means, among other things.



A whale is a coordinated engineering masterpiece and if you can’t see that, it’s a pity.


The argument from awe twisted up with the argument from ignorance - klassic Kreationist komedy...

The evidence is all in your imagination. You have to really want to believe it.


Living in so constant a state of denial will eventually take its toll.


Why two contradictory orders of creation?


To play around with the god rejecters of our day who throw aside a common designer and insist on randomness and no plan instead? It certainly shows how evolutionists are not put off by pictures that contradict evolution –they make up fresh new stories instead, stories that make the non-believers mouths drop open in astonishment.


So much nonsense, yet not even an attempt to address a major problem with taking Genesis literally.
That cognitive dissonance will catch up to you one day.

But since you are an expert on mutations - please tell us all - if this evolution really happened, how many mutations would have been required?


Well to be really kind, lets work on just one new protein per new structure and then work out the probability of all these things coming to pass shall we?

Well first, you will need to provide a rationale for why we actually need one new protein per new structure, then I would like to know just what counts as a 'new' structure
- what does a whale have that, say, a hippo does not have that is not simply a rearangment of 'old' parts?
Then I wouuld have to know why you want to discuss probability, how you would apply it to this scenario, etc.


for just saying that mutations can't do it is just  abaseless assertion.


Surely since you can’t even show me one macro beneficial mutation, you are indulging in baseless assertion?

I don't know what a 'macro beneficial mutation' is, since you are so averse to actually explaining what you mean.

There must have been a lot of gradual in-the-wrong direction intermediate creatures that never made it. Where are they? Where are the ones with the fins but not the fluke? Where are the ones with the fluke and legs but not the blubber? ...?
Where are the wicked humans killed in  the flood all at once?  Where are the fossil graveyards containing discontemporaneous bones all mixed up, like humans mixed in with triceratopsians, or modern birds (hey, they cannot fly for a year!) ?


You appear to be changing the subject here –


No, I am just showing how naive - and idiotic - your demands are.

where are these intermediate whales?


Where are all the biblical patriarchs?  Where is the ark?  Where are all the intermediates between the original bat kind and the extant 900+ species?

The clear examples of transitions should have legs mixed with fins, tail mixed with fluke, nose changing into blowhole, back legs disappearing?

Legs mixed with fins?  What does that mean, precisely?  You expect it to have a fin on one side and a limb on the other?
As we have seen with Archaeopteryx, your criteria are set in jello and are applied inconsistently and arbitrarily for the sole purpose of never having to acknowledge what those with actual education, knowledge, and experience in the appropriate fields accept.  You never did, for example, try to discuss Archaeopteryx's actual anatomy (e.g., the sternum) despite claiming an understanding of anatomy.  It is almost as if you just claimed such knowledge to make others think you had actually thought this stuff through, yet when you get caught demonstrating that your knowledge of these issues is not what you tried to make it out to be, well, you come across like a TROOO Christian Creationist - you just avoid discussing it.


We’re talking about evolution. Does not believing in my story make yours sound better to you?

Not at all.  But throwing back absurd demands sometimes shows how absurd your own demands actually are.

Why would you expect there to be a fossil of every possible intermediate - and more precisely, every possible intermediate that happens to meet your ever changing, idiosyncratic criteria?



What is the 'intermediate' betweeen this fellow: ….and this one: Or were they created seperately?


I have no idea.


And yet you feel free to declare that Archaeopteryx is not an intermediate, and that whales and land mammals cannot possibly be related.

Something seems inconsistent.  Is it because you have not yet come across a creationist propaganda book dealing with guenons?

you have to propose a MECHANISM by which this level of hyperevolution occurred to produce, for example, 900+ species of bat from the original bat kind in less than 2500 years


Can these bats interbreed or not? Are they the same kind? Could they at one stage interbreed? We need to know the answers to the questions to get anywhere on this.

Really?

So the ability to interbreed is your big criterion is it?

Tell me - with your vast knnowledge of reproductive physiology, what are the first few steps in fertilization in amniotes?

Hmmm?

Is it , maybe, the sperm binding to the zona pellucida?  
===
Anat Rec. 1977 Aug;188(4):477-87.

Sperm/egg interaction: the specificity of human spermatozoa.
Bedford JM.

Human spermatozoa display unusually limited affinities in their interaction with oocytes of other species. They adhered to and, when capacitated, penetrated the vestments of the oocyte of an ape--the gibbon, Hylobates lar--both in vivo and in vitro.
On the other hand, human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of sub-hominoid primate (baboon, rhesus monkey, squirrel monkey), nor to the non-primate eutherian oocytes tested. Among the apes the gibbon stands furthest from man. Thus, although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it probably is restricted to the Hominoidea. This study also suggests that the evolution of man and perhaps the other hominids has been accompanied by a restrictive change in the nature of the sperm surface which has limited and made more specific the complementary surface to which their spermatozoa may adhere. ===


There are many different groups of people as well and they used to be divided into different species

Who did this?


but they can interbreed so they all have the same origin. How about the bats?
I suppose you’ve noticed how rapidly different kinds of dogs are bred out –obviously it needed a bit of human interference or the intelligence factor but there is clearly a vast amount of variation present in the original ‘dog’ genome.

So where do you think all that variation comes from?  Was it all just always there?  If so, why did we never see a chihuahua giving birth on occasion to a mastiff?

Maybe the same is true of the bats, maybe they started with only two or maybe four –who knows –but they probably had a lot of built in variation and rapidly diversified.

Yeah, probably.  Anything beyond 'probably'?

If my take on evolution was premised on caricatures and child-like distortions as your's is, I would have trouble accepting it, too.


Well did the land mammal start swimming and adapt to its environment or not? Did it get in the water or adapt for the water first? How did these coordinated changes occur if the environment can’t be responded to? How do random mutations happen upon all the features required for swimming in one animal that lived on land and then went swimming. This is not child like, this is practical and not distorted at all. Please try to explain it to me so that I can cease to be childlike about it.


See what I mean?
No, Lester, such 'questions' are indeed child-like, especially coming from someone claiming advanced education on these very subjects.
The naivete just oozes from your every post, and you are too prideful and Dunning-Krugerized to get it.

Just because you can hand wave over it with “I know that it happened because I know’ does not mean that you know anything at all about how it could have/might have happened.

It is true that I personally do not have any idea what the steps were that lead to the production of whales.  But I need not know every step if I can see the evidence left behind showing that it happened.  
If I find an empty book of matches and an empty can of gasoline next to a burned down house, do I really need to know some arbitrary chain of events to conclude that the house was set on fire?
The morning after Halloween, my son had a fit because most of his candy was gone - his candy bag was on the floor, and there were torn up wrappers and half eaten candy bars strewn about, and there were slimy bite marks on nearly everything.  Did we really have to observe the dog biting into each and every candy bar to understand that the dog did it?
We can look at the record of unique shared mutations in the genomes of the creatures in question and see a record of mutational change.  Does that tell us exaclty what steps occurred getting a whale from a non-whale? Not at all, but it tells us that it did happen, and it is up to other researchers to try to fill in the voids with things like fossils (all of which you reject in favor of some uncorroborated tall tales, I know).


Which is why I suppose you folks keep using such tactics, for to be honest, youwould have to be like Dr. Todd Wood or Dr. Kurt Wise, both of whom admit that there is evidence for evolution but remain creationists because of their Faith, which overrides their common sense....


These are quite ridiculous people, excuse me for being rude, but if all the evidence for evolution was so clear, I’d be an evolutionist.


No, you wouldn't.  When I see a YEC making this claim, I know they are lying - they are lying to us, and to themselves.
Many years ago, YEC Helen Fryman declared that were she to see a 'smooth' gradation of genetic identity across phylogeny as indicated by evolution, she would find it 'troubling' for her YEC beliefs.  So, I presented her with a data matrix of some 35 mammalian species showing just what she asked for.  Did she admit that she found it troubling for YEC?  Of course not - she just claimed that the matrix did not cover ALL animals, and did not inlcude data from the entire genome of each animal, so she saw no reason to be troubled.  IOW, she just rejected the very evidence she claimed she would accept in order to protect her religious views, and I see no indication that you would do anything different.


You have made it clear that you accept the bible in part because it never changes and never will change.  Many weak-willed people NEED such stability and see the tentative nature of all science as a threat to their emotional and psychological security.  

These 'ridiculous' people as you call them are, unlike you, highly educated and trained individuals with graduate degrees from accredited well-known legitimate institutions - Wise received his PhD in paleontology from Harvard University, for example, and actually studied fossils.  He KNOWS that there is evidence for evolution, that there ARE transitonals.  He simply rejects the scientific, rational interpretation of them due to his Faith and has said so.
You?  
Aside from some vague allusions to having had a few science classes in your graduate education, you've not said what your area of specialization is.  What do YOU know that a Harvard-trainined paleontologist does not such that you can call him 'ridiculous'?



But it is so ridiculous and imaginary and non-
existant that I just can’t. Mr Todd Wood and Mr Kurt Wise are probably undercover evolutionists -they are certainly not practical people or they would not say such silly things. I’d love them to show me their evidence. I’ll bet it as good as yours.


I do enjoy seeing YECs attack each other with logical fallacies.  It shows how weak their position actually is.


Wrong. I do need evidence. And i have lots, besides the fossil record.
Like what?
Funny - we've been asking you to provide evidence FOR YECism, and the best you can come up with are supposed problems with evolution.  You simply reject evidence presented to you out of hand, or engage in nitpicky distrations and employ doctored quotes to prop up your cause.


Ahem… where is the other evidence…apart from a fossil record that supports creation?

The fossil record supports creation?  Is that an assertion?  
Right - I forgot how we find dinosaur fossils in the same strata as modern birds, and how we find human fossils in the same strata as saddle-wearing stegasaurs...

Molecular phylogenetics supports evolution quite nicely.  Comparative embryology.  Physiology.  Anatomy. Etc...


Nitpicky distractions huh???


Yes indeed.  Like how when I started a thread for you  to explain how 'genetics' does not support evolution - your claim -  the first - and only - thing you did was prattle on about whale fossils.
You seem quite incapable of discussing even issues YOU bring up beyond a few throw away assertions and strawmen.


It’s incomprehensible to me that you can be so easily led by imagination without the requisite evidence.
Projection at its laughable best.


You obviously haven’t looked very closely at what you believe, have you?

Yes - I've actually done original research on what I 'believe'. Have you actually looked at YOUR beliefs skeptically?  

To make sure men can treat women as property and own slaves?


You make it sound as if God condoned slavery and wife abuse –obviously you haven’t actually read the Bible.

Right....  And here you are doctoring my words.  I said nothing of wife abuse, I said treating them as property, and the owning of slaves is a given in the  bible.  Or haven't YOU read your precious fairy tales?

Exodus 21

2If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.


4If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.


7And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.


Slavery treated as an everyday thing, AND women as property, in just one chapter.

It is quite easy to find many verses in the bible both condoning slavery and treating women as property.  Surely, you know and have been programmed to gloss over this?


Lots of people can see you at your sad game, Timmy's boyfriend.


Who the hell is Timmy?


Yeah, exactly.


Dr. as in creationist  medical doctor....  How could he possibly not be an expert on all things related to evolution?


By studying it for the last 30 years as his major hobby ever since 2nd year medical school and by visiting all the major fossil museums in the world and interviewing all the experts on the various major fossil evidences for evolution. By listening to both sides take on the evidence.

Oh - a HOBBY! Well, of course.

I've commented before that it is almost more instructive to see what people like you do NOT respond to as to what you do - for your new hero to have studied evolution for 30 years - albeit as a hobby - and to write things like what you decided not to respond to:

" If jawless fish are the evolutionary predecessors of other fish, one would expect them to be extinct, according to the idea of survival of the fittest."

then he did not actually learn much in all that time.

You see, when I see someone write something as ignorant as that, and this someone has claimed to have studied evolution for decades (I see this quite a bit, actually), we can conclude a couple of things:


The person is just plain lying to prop up his faith.

The person really did study for decades, but only studied YEC propaganda.

Combinations of both of the above.

The saddest part is, such folk really impress people like Lester, who, if he is actually telling the truth about his doctorate, should be able to see how naive and plain silly such claims are.


we all know how honest creationists are when it comes to interviewing people.


Well the sad thing is that we all know how honest evolutionists can be when being interviewed by creationists. For instance when Carl Werner wanted to find living fossils in dinosaur-age rock, he started by asking “Have you found any fossils of modern animal or plant species at this dinosaur dig site?” Evolutionists don’t like that sort of question –they freeze up because they know what the implications are. So after a slow start he asked the question differently:
“At this site where you are working have you found any animals that survived the dinosaur extinction event –any modern appearing animals that are alive today?”
This they found less challenging and it loosened them up to tell the truth. Well then he found loads of ‘modern appearing’ plants and animals to add to his list because the question didn’t specifically challenge evolution but rather focused on dinosaur extinction.


And by 'modern appearing' - let me guess, the YEC medical doctor then wildly extrapolated that to mean ACTUAL modern living things, right?


As for seals and sea lions not being related, well you’re laughably wrong there too….


Well so you say, but Australian scientists have a display at Kangaroo island that shows that a dog or dog-like animal evolved into a sea lion while scientists at Howard university in Washington DC think that a bear evolved into a sea lion.


And here you are again with your museum displays as "evidence".

You know, at the creation museum, they show a Triceratops with a saddle on it.
I guess that means that some 'scientists' think that ceratopsians were domesticated.  Funny how no mention of any such creature is found anywherere, not even in scripture....

But you know - you inadvertendly made a fool of yourself yet again - apparently you are unaware that dogs and bears are actually very closely related...



I know you cannot decipher those sciencey- things, but if you look closely, you can see a group called the Caniformia (dog-like), and the OTUs have names like Ursus and Canis...

What is the evidence for this evolution?Is it possible that they evolved from neither? Could they both be wrong?

Sure.  Real science is tentative.  Real science, unlike YEC pseudoscience, does not start with the conclusion then try to force obeservations to fit the pre-determined outcome.  
But nitpicking over museum displays that on the one hand show a dog-like forerunner and on the other show a bear-like one only shows how little you truly understand.  Perhaps it is you, not Drs Wood and Wise, that is the 'ridiculous' person?

Dr Irina Koretsky from the Smithsonian who specializes in seal and sea lion evolution believes that eared seals come from bear-like animals but she has no idea which bear-like animal as they have no intermediates (ie. they are guessing).


Right, just guessing.  So, you got that from your YEC medical doctor's book, right (I can google, too)?  

Looking though Google books, Werner's book
comes across as no better than any of jailbird Kent fake-PhD Hovind's nonsese.

Lester's new hero's book is here.

p. 112:

"... The theory of evolution says that a ground mammal changed into a bat by a series of mistaken mutations in the DNA of the reproductive cells.  For this to occur, thousands of letters of DNA would have had to change by accident, in the proper location, and in the proper order."

If Werner believes that, he is a class A moron.  Then, he is a YEC with an agenda to push, so we should not expect any sort of rational treatment of the material.


Dr Berta of San Diego State University (who specializes in aquatic mammal evolution) says that “the earliest animal that they’ve recognized has the name Pithanotaria. It’s very similar in terms of body size and morphology to the modern sea lions.” In code this means we have only found sea lions but no intermediates so we don’t actually know what animal they evolved from.

Thousands of sea lions have been found dated 0-24 MYA but no direct ancestors.

Seals, say Dr Berta, are allied to a completely group of carnivores, the skunks and the otters.


So, you've just admitted that neither you nor your YEC medical doctor hero understand what 'allied' means - hilarious!

When asked which Mustelid evolved into a seal, Dr Koretsky said “I don’t have any evidence or material yet.” (This means they think so but have no evidence.)


I'd say what we have here is just another example of a sleazy YEC propagandist butchering and manipulating honest people's words.

Why would a mustelid have evolved into a seal when that is not what is proposed or indicated by the evidence?



5000 fossil seals have been found but no direct ancestors. So did none of them fossilize? That’s amazing!!

At this point, I have little reason to believe that your YEC doctor hero is a reliable source.


Please explain how I am laughably wrong.  

On this or in general?

Well, let's see... There was the PhD in science who didn't know what phenotype mean, the guy who employs logical fallacies as evidence, the guy who wonders why there is no evidence for an evolutionary sequence that is not proposed, the guy who declares that museum displays are at odds because one shows a dog-like animal and the other a bear-like one,  the guy who seems to think that all transitionals should have both fossilized and been discovered yet who reserves the right to dismiss anything presented as a transitional if he can conjure up some structure that he can claim does not meet his idiosyncratic and vague definition for transitional, the guy who declares PhD level creationists who acknowledge that there are transitional fossils and evidence for revolution are 'ridiculous people' and likley closet evolutionists because they are honest and he is not, etc.

Shall I go on?







-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:55 PM on January 17, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:07 AM on January 17, 2010 :
Why don’t you read Stephen Meyer’s “Signature in the Cell” –it’s causing a big stir. Don’t be influenced by raging reviews by evolutionists who have not even bothered to read the book; rather try the reviews of evolutionists that have read the book and are justifiably impressed.


Can you name ONE evolutionist that is 'justifiably impressed' by Meyer's rehashed, padded gibberish?

NAME ONE.

Anyway...
Here is a mathematician demolishing Meyer's take on "information" and the like, any emphases mine, part one.  I've edited out much of it for brevity:

***
A couple of months ago, I finished a first reading of Stephen Meyer's new book, Signature in the Cell. It was very slow going because there is so much wrong with it, and I tried to take notes on everything that struck me.

Two things struck me as I read it: first, its essential dishonesty, and second, Meyer's significant misunderstandings of information theory. I'll devote a post to the book's many mispresentations another day, and concentrate on information theory today. I'm not a biologist, so I'll leave a detailed discussion of what's wrong with his biology to others.

In Signature in the Cell, Meyer talks about three different kinds of information: Shannon information, Kolmogorov information, and a third kind that has been invented by ID creationists and has no coherent definition. I'll call the third kind "creationist information".

Shannon's theory is a probabilistic theory. ...If one cannot realistically estimate the probabilities, any discussion of the relevant information is likely to be bogus.

In contrast, Kolmogorov's theory of information makes no reference to probability distributions at all...

Neither Shannon's nor Kolmogorov's theory has anything to do with meaning. For example, a message can be very meaningful to humans, and yet have little Kolmogorov information (such as the answer "yes" to a marriage proposal), and have little meaning to humans, yet have much Kolmogorov information (such as most strings obtained by 1000 flips of a fair coin).

Both Shannon's and Kolmogorov's theories are well-grounded mathematically, and there are thousands of papers explaining them and their consequences....

Creationist information, as discussed by Meyer, is an incoherent mess. One version of it has been introduced by William Dembski, and criticized in detail by Mark Perakh, Richard Wein, and many others (including me). Intelligent design creationists love to call it "specified information" or "specified complexity" and imply that it is widely accepted by the scientific community, but this is not the case. There is no paper in the scientific literature that gives a rigorous and coherent definition of creationist information; nor is it used in scientific or mathematical investigations.

...For Meyer, a string of symbols contains creationist information only if it communicates or carries out some function. However, he doesn't say explicitly how much creationist information such a string has. Sometimes he seems to suggest the amount of creationist information is the length of the string, and sometime he suggests it is the negative logarithm of the probability. But probability with respect to what? Its causal history, or with respect to a uniform distribution of strings? Dembski's definition has the same flaws, but Meyer's vague definition introduces even more problems. Here are just a few.

Problem 1: there is no univeral way to communicate, so Meyer's definition is completely subjective. If I receive a string of symbols that says "Uazekele?", I might be tempted to ignore it as gibberish, but a Lingala speaker would recognize it immediately and reply "Mbote". Quantities in mathematics and science are not supposed to depend on who is measuring them.

Problem 2: If we measure creationist information solely by the length of the string, then we can wildly overestimate the information contained in a string by padding. For example, consider a computer program P that carries out some function, and the identical program P', except n no-op instructions have been added. If he uses the length measure, then Meyer would have to claim that P' has something like n more bits of creationist information than P. (In the Kolmogorov theory, by contrast, P' would have only at most order log n more bits of information.)

Problem 3: If we measure creationist information with respect to the uniform distribution on strings, then Meyer's claim (see below) that only intelligence can create creationist information is incorrect. For example, any transformation that maps a string to the same string duplicated 1000 times creates a string that, with respect to the uniform distribution, is wildly improbable; yet it can easily be produced mechanically.

Problem 4: If we measure creationist information with respect to the causal history of the object in question, then we are forced to estimate these probabilities. But since Meyer is interested in applying his method to phenomena that are currently poorly understood, such as the origin of life, all he's really doing (since his creationist information is sometimes the negative log of the probability) is estimating the probability of these events -- something we can't reasonably do, precisely because we don't know that causal history. In this case, all the talk about "information" is a red herring; he might as well say "Improbable - therefore designed!" and be done with it.

Problem 5: All Meyer seems interested in is whether the string communicates something or has a function. But some strings communicate more than others, despite being the same length, and some functions are more useful than others. Meyer's measure doesn't take this into account. A string like "It will rain tomorrow" and "Tomorrow: 2.5 cm rain" have the same length, but clearly one is more useful than the other. Meyer, it seems to me, would claim they have the same amount of creationist information.

Problem 6: For Meyer, information in a computational context could refer to, for example, a computer program that carries out a function. The longer the program, the more creationist information. Now consider a very long program
that has a one-letter syntax error, so that the program will not compile. Such a program does not carry out any function, so for Meyer it has no information at all! Now a single "point mutation" will magically create lots more creationist information, something Meyer says is impossible.

Even if we accept Meyer's informal definition of information with all its flaws, his claims about information are simply wrong. For example, he repeats the following bogus claim over and over:

p. 16: "What humans recognize as information certainly originates from thought - from conscious or intelligent human activity... Our experience of the world shows that what we recognize as information invariably reflects the prior activity of conscious and intelligent persons."

[SOUND FAMILIAR???]

p. 291: "Either way, information in a computational context does not magically arise without the assistance of the computer scientist."

p. 341: "It follows that mind -- conscious, rational intelligent agency -- what philosophers call "agent causation," now stands as the only cause known to be capable of generating large amounts of specified information starting from a nonliving state."

p. 343: "Experience shows that large amounts of specified complexity or information (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source -- from a mind or personal agent."

p. 343: "...both common experience and experimental evidence affirms intelligent design as a necessary condition (and cause)
of information..."

p. 376: "We are not ignorant of how information arises. We know from experience that conscious intelligent agents can create informational sequences and systems."

p. 376: "Experience teaches that whenever large amounts of specified complexity or information are present in an artifact or entity whose causal story is known, invariably creative intelligence -- intelligent design -- played a role in the origin of that entity."

p. 396: "As noted previously, as I present the evidence for intelligent design, critics do not typically try to dispute my specific empirical claims. They do not dispute that DNA contains specified information, or that this type of information always comes from a mind..."

I have a simple counterexample to all these claims: weather prediction. Meteorologists collect huge amounts of data from the natural world: temperature, pressure, wind speed, wind direction, etc., and process this data to produce accurate weather forecasts. So the information they collect is "specified" (in that it tells us whether to bring an umbrella in the morning), and clearly hundreds, if not thousands, of these bits of information are needed to make an accurate prediction. But these bits of information do not come from a mind - unless Meyer wants to claim that some intelligent being (let's say Zeus) is controlling the weather. Perhaps intelligent design creationism is just Greek polytheism in disguise!

Claims about information are central to Meyer's book, but, as we have seen, many of these claims are flawed. There are lots and lots of other problems with Meyer's book. Here are just a few; I could have listed dozens more.
...
In summary, Meyer's claims about information are incoherent in places and wildly wrong in others. The people who have endorsed this book, from Thomas Nagel to Philip Skell to J. Scott Turner, uncritically accepting Meyer's claims about information and not even hinting that he might be wrong, should be ashamed


(Edited by derwood 1/17/2010 at 1:08 PM).


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:06 PM on January 17, 2010 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ]
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.