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
     Christian Biologist reviews
       Meyer's latest nonsense SITC

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The fellow that runs the blog "Quinessence of Dust" is doing a chapter by chapter review of Meyer's 'new' book "Signature in the Cell," which as we are probably aware, is being heralded (primarily by those associated with the DI) as the great proof of ID.

His review of the prologue was not too charitable, and his review of Chapter One is a bit scathing. I will present a few of his comments here, and doubtless, Lester can provide contrary commentary as long as he employs a pneumonic...:
3. We don't know how the information systems arose during very early evolution. This is a mystery, an enigma: the DNA enigma. I hope that Meyer will explain the difference between "unanswered question" and "mystery." If Signature in the Cell is about nothing more than current ignorance regarding certain aspects of abiogenesis, then the book is a joke.


...


2. Meyer's historical reflections emit a suspiciously propagandistic aroma. While describing the influence of Charles Thaxton, Meyer writes in ways that I find to be unacceptably misleading. Consider his description of a conference in Dallas in February of 1985. After noting that the conference "would bring together scientists from competing philosophical perspectives," Meyer relates how "controversy erupted":
What introduced drama into what might have otherwise been a dry academic discussion was the reaction of some of the scientists to a new idea. Three of the scientists on the panel had just published a controversial book called The Mystery of Life's Origin with a prominent New York publisher of scientific monographs.Their book provided a comprehensive critique of the attempts that had been made to explain how the first life had arisen from the primordial ocean, the so-called prebiotic soup. These scientists, Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen, had come to the conclusion that all such theories had failed to explain the origin of the first life.

–page 26
According to Meyer, Thaxton et al. then suggested that because information in DNA is "mathematically identical" to information in language and code, it must have an "intelligent cause." Then:
That was where the fireworks started. Other scientists on the panel became uncharacteristically defensive and hostile. Dr. Russell Doolittle, of the University of California at San Diego, suggested that if the three authors were not satisfied with the progress of origin-of-life experiments, then they should "do them." Never mind that another scientist on the panel who had favored Thaxton's hypothesis, Professor Dean Kenyon, of San Francisco State University, was a leading origin-of-life researcher who had himself performed many such experiments. It was clear that Dolittle regarded the three scientists, despite their strong credentials, as upstarts who had violated some unspoken convention.

–page 26
Reading this account makes me worry about the rest of Signature in the Cell. Meyer seems to be carefully manipulating his account in order to give the reader a distorted impression of the "conference" and the book at the center of one of its panel discussions. The "conference" wasn't the scientific conference that you're picturing. It was a dialogue sponsored by Dallas Baptist University and an organization of Christian scholars. It was called "Christianity Challenges the University: A Dialogue of Theists and Atheists" and it was specifically intended to bring "the theistic position" into dialogue with "the atheistic position" on topics from all corners of the academic world. The opening talks were on "Why I am a Christian." I think the event sounds really interesting, and the organizers assembled a superb group of scholars. But do you see how Meyer has misled us about that conference? It wasn't a scientific meeting. It was a dialogue between atheists and theists. Why didn't Meyer just tell us that? The session that Meyer attended was not a meeting of scientists for the purpose of discussing OOL research. It was a religiously-oriented dialogue centered on the new book by Thaxton et al., and the session was chaired by Thaxton himself. (You can read more about the Dialogue in the ASA Newsletter, June/July and August/September of 1985.)

And it gets worse. Meyer's claim that "other scientists became defensive and hostile" is contradicted by the report of Owen Gingerich, the Harvard astronomer and historian of science, who was present at the whole dialogue and wrote that "the entire dialogue was conducted with intelligence and good humor, with each side respecting while disagreeing with the philosophical orientation of their opponents." Meyer wants you to picture the "other scientists" reacting with hostility to a "new idea" from "upstarts" while carefully obscuring the nature of the event, to the point that he writes of a "conference" to "bring together scientists from competing philosophical perspectives." I find that to be disingenuous. And quite sad.


The review of Chapter One ends with:


This book looks like folk science to me. It's already lowered my regard for its author. I hope it gets better. I really do.
 
Well, I suppose that is enough.

Looks like we can expect what most of uis already expected - embellishment, misrepresentation, hyperbole, etc.

IOW - the usual creationist tripe.

But we will see...

BTW - I also doubt that Kenyon had done any of the things Meyer implies...

(Edited by derwood 1/29/2010 at 2:31 PM).


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:28 PM on January 29, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Stephen Matheson

Evolution, developmental biology, and neuroscience...for Christians
About my blog

Visit my blog, Quintessence of Dust, featuring regular reviews of the recent scientific literature (Journal Clubs), on topics of interest to evangelical Christians (like me).


Some of his earlier work:

What is the evidence for common descent?

To even ask the question, it seems to me, is to suppose that common descent is a proposal, or a hypothesis, and that a certain body of evidence supports the proposal. And that, of course, is quite true: common descent is a scientific theory, and a certain body of evidence supports that theory. But it is my view, and one of the themes of this blog, that the theory of common descent does not derive its main strength, its immense scientific success, from the collection of evidence that supports the proposal that organisms alive today are related through ancient common ancestors. In other words, I think that to claim that “there is a lot of evidence for common descent” is to significantly understate the strength of the theory.

The strength of the theory arises not from the evidence that supports it, although one can certainly build an overwhelmingly compelling case on that basis alone. The strength of the theory arises from its vast explanatory power. The data that make common descent so scientifically compelling are not just the data that “support” the theory. To really understand why common descent is such a powerful theory, one must focus on data that are explained by the theory, findings that just don’t make sense without an explanatory framework of common ancestry.


Quintessence of Dust


-------
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: 7:25 PM on January 30, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

When one argues via false authority, it is apparently difficult to come to grips with the fact that not everyone wants to join their little cult fo personality.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:49 PM on February 5, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Meyer's 'new' book "Signature in the Cell," which as we are probably aware, is being heralded (primarily by those associated with the DI) as the great proof of ID.


I thought we didn’t talk about proof in science? Shouldn’t I be calling you a moron at this stage? Oh no sorry, that only applies to me. L
I think what they’re saying is that it is a great argument for ID of DNA –not proof of ID.

Lester can provide contrary commentary as long as he employs a pneumonic...:


Don’t you mean mnemonic Derwood? Don’t you get tired of yourself sometimes?
I think that that was a typo, definitely a typo.

Now on to the scathing review….

I hope that Meyer will explain the difference between "unanswered question" and "mystery."


I think they mean very similar things –only Meyer implies that the answer might not be accessible to us if we only look at natural laws and the other guy implies that it is only an enigma for now and the great minds of the world will definitely work it out sometime in the near future, rendering it no more a mystery and definitely nothing to do with intelligent design.

Meyer's historical reflections emit a suspiciously propagandistic aroma.


As does this ‘Quintessance of Dust’ blogger.

Meyer seems to be carefully manipulating his account in order to give the reader a distorted impression of the "conference" and the book at the center of one of its panel discussions.


Or maybe this blogger is manipulating what Meyer is saying in an attempt to distort the real picture of what happened at the conference. He wasn’t there remember. Hostile and defensive are both words that describe the reactions of evolutionists to suggestions of ID very well - so to me it seems more than likely. Not only do I see hostility and defensiveness with enormous regularity on this forum but I’ve watched the hostility and defensiveness of evolutionists on numerous debates. They can’t seem to help themselves. They just don’t take opposition well.
The "conference" wasn't the scientific conference that you're picturing.


Why? Did they hide its name or the venue? OR is the blogger just alluding to deception here for effect?

But do you see how Meyer has misled us about that conference? It wasn't a scientific meeting. It was a dialogue between atheists and theists.


What’s not scientific about that? Is an atheist not a scientist just because he believes there is no God? Does his belief system preclude him from objectivity?

Why didn't Meyer just tell us that? The session that Meyer attended was not a meeting of scientists for the purpose of discussing OOL research.


But it was. The attendees were scientists and they were discussing OOL research. What is this man on about?

It was a religiously-oriented dialogue centered on the new book by Thaxton et al., and the session was chaired by Thaxton himself.


What religious orientation does Thaxton have? What religious orientation did Doolittle have? Does it matter? Were they discussing OOL or not?

And it gets worse. Meyer's claim that "other scientists became defensive and hostile" is contradicted by the report of Owen Gingerich, the Harvard astronomer and historian of science, who was present at the whole dialogue and wrote that "the entire dialogue was conducted with intelligence and good humor, with each side respecting while disagreeing with the philosophical orientation of their opponents."


Well perhaps the blogger isn’t hearing the whole story here. Maybe the dialogue was ‘in general’ filled with good humour but was at that point, mentioned by Meyer, ‘defensive and hostile’ and it just didn’t phase Gingerich. Maybe Gingerich was embarrassed by his colleagues defensive hostility and didn’t want that on record so he gave a general report leaving out what didn’t look good. The blogger is clearly biased towards Meyer so there’s a good chance he is taking sides and denying Meyer’s perspective because he knows how it makes the opposition look. Perhaps if we asked people like Thaxton and Kenyon how they felt about the reaction of the evolutionists at the point that Meyer describes, they might agree with Meyer?
I’ll have to go look at what others say before I decide what really happened.

while carefully obscuring the nature of the event, to the point that he writes of a "conference" to "bring together scientists from competing philosophical perspectives." I find that to be disingenuous. And quite sad.


Aaah, sad? That’s too bad. I’m pleased you believe this guy –he seems to be a poser to me which is why you like his blog and I think it smells of deception. We don’t know that anybody carefully obscured the event. I assume it was held in a public venue and everybody knew who everybody else was as well as the title that discussed theists and atheist as the two opposing religious perspectives on the OOL.

This book looks like folk science to me. It's already lowered my regard for its author. I hope it gets better. I really do.


Once again, a big aaah! To that. This guy sure knows how to make me cry.

Derwood Looks like we can expect what most of uis already expected - embellishment, misrepresentation, hyperbole, etc.


Where’s the embellishment? Are you sure? Misrepresentation? This blogger sure seems full of it? And hyperbole? That is your forte Derwood, you should be appreciating it.

IOW - the usual creationist tripe.


You must mean the usual evolutionist tripe –must be a typo here.



   





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


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 01:09 AM on February 7, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

On CHapter 3:
***
1. Meyer makes a basic error on page 66 while describing the early evidence that DNA is the genetic material. He's describing the classic experiments of Avery, MacLeod and McCarty on Pneumococcus bacteria that can be transformed from one strain into another. The phenomenon of transformation had been discovered by Frederick Griffith in the 1920's.


If a deadly strain of the bacteria was first heated to death, the strain was harmless when injected into mice. No surprise there. The mice were also unharmed when injected with a living but nonvirulent strain of the virus.

Do you see the mistake?

Now, if you're not a biologist, you might think the error is trivial, purely semantic, a typing glitch induced by the proximity of the word 'virulent.' And that last part is probably right. But this biologist finds the error more significant, and I suspect others would agree. The difference, I think, is that I can't imagine mistaking a virus for a bacterium; it's like mistaking a pencil for a sequoia. A person who would make that mistake – and leave it in his awesome, groundbreaking treatise on 21st-century biological science – is a person who doesn't think very much about viruses or bacteria. A person who would make that mistake is a non-specialist. A layperson.

And of course, Stephen Meyer is a layperson. He's clearly not a biologist, or even a person who's particularly knowledgeable about biology. (That paper in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington became infamous due to political disputes; I thought it was most notable for being lame.) This is obvious from my reading of this book and his other work, and the mistake on page 66 just serves to remind me that despite the thunderous praise from fans on the dustjacket and in the ID-osphere, Meyer just isn't all that impressive as a scientific thinker. Call me a jerk, but I expect a hell of a lot more from someone who wants to rewrite science (and its history).

***

Note the bolded part.

But I'm sure that this Christian's - an actual  biologist' -  opinions are just "ridiculous"...


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:36 AM on February 7, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm finding it increasingly easy to stop reading Lester's posts. ^_^

There used to be like a morbid need to read them. Now i read some parts of some of them, if i feel like it.

Blindly uneducated, willing to stay that way, dishonest AND projecting. There's NOTHING we can do about all that.

So it's all about lurkers.
We respond to Lester knowing that he won't learn much from it (except maybe improve a little his weaseling out technique).



-------
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: 6:58 PM on February 7, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 6:58 PM on February 7, 2010 :
[color=teal]I'm finding it increasingly easy to stop reading Lester's posts. ^_^

There used to be like a morbid need to read them. Now i read some parts of some of them, if i feel like it.


They are all pretty much the same now anyway - he used to at least try, now it is just 'Nuh uh! No evidence for evolution!  Bible 100% true!' , add a dose of hero worship and some witnessing, and he's just a broken record, playing the same garbage every time.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:11 AM on February 8, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:09 AM on February 7, 2010 :
Meyer's 'new' book "Signature in the Cell," which as we are probably aware, is being heralded (primarily by those associated with the DI) as the great proof of ID.


I thought we didn’t talk about proof in science?


We don't - it is pretty clear that I was referring to what IDcreationists claim.

Shouldn’t I be calling you a moron at this stage? Oh no sorry, that only applies to me.

I agree - and one can look at the things you have writtenon this forum to see why that is a very charitible characterization.  The other option - purposeful deception - has an evil connotation to it, but if you'd prefer to be known as a malicious liar rather than an underinformed doofus, I have no problem with that.


I think what they’re saying is that it is a great argument for ID of DNA –not proof of ID.

Right - because those two are not even close.

Lester can provide contrary commentary as long as he employs a pneumonic...:


Don’t you mean mnemonic Derwood? Don’t you get tired of yourself sometimes?
I think that that was a typo, definitely a typo.


Um, no..

I make typios - like that one.  A typo is generally the result of hitting the wrong key, hitting the same key, etc. when typing.  The "I" key is next to the "O" key, for example, which is why my typo of typos is spelled "typios".

"Pneumo-" is not even close to "mnemo-", but say what you need to.



Now on to the scathing review….

I hope that Meyer will explain the difference between "unanswered question" and "mystery."


I think they mean very similar things –only Meyer implies that the answer might not be accessible to us if we only look at natural laws and the other guy implies that it is only an enigma for now and the great minds of the world will definitely work it out sometime in the near future, rendering it no more a mystery and definitely nothing to do with intelligent design.


"Mystery" definitely has a certain connotation to it, hence the TV show "Unsolved Mysteries" was not called "Unanswered questions."

Meyer's historical reflections emit a suspiciously propagandistic aroma.


As does this ‘Quintessance of Dust’ blogger.


Right - because he is not the right kind of Christian - he is one that actually thnks for himself and fact-checks the writings of charismatic creationist.

So - do you think Meyer's take on the 'scientific meeting' with Thaxton was honest?
Of course you do...


Meyer seems to be carefully manipulating his account in order to give the reader a distorted impression of the "conference" and the book at the center of one of its panel discussions.


Or maybe this blogger is manipulating what Meyer is saying in an attempt to distort the real picture of what happened at the conference. He wasn’t there remember.

No, but he is referring to accounts presented by those who were, and he also points out how Meyer distorted the very nature of the conference.

Hostile and defensive are both words that describe the reactions of evolutionists to suggestions of ID very well - so to me it seems more than likely.

Yes, of course it does, and disinformative, dishonest, and sleazy are all words that describe the antics of IDcreationists quite well.


Not only do I see hostility and defensiveness with enormous regularity on this forum but I’ve watched the hostility and defensiveness of evolutionists on numerous debates. They can’t seem to help themselves.

And how would you describe your posts and the actions of creationists in 'debates'?

Cheerful, polite, and honest, I'll bet...

They just don’t take opposition well.

Actually, we just have probelms with disingenuous arguments, red herrings and analogies presented as 'evidence', assertions that are never supported, accusations that are never supported, running away form discussions that are not finished, etc.

The "conference" wasn't the scientific conference that you're picturing.


Why? Did they hide its name or the venue?

No, it was just not set up as a scientific conference.

IDcreationists have a history of lying about such things to make their movement seem to have more relevance.  I refer you to the big Yale ID conference a few years ago.  It was billed as exactly that - a big ID conference at Yale.  Sounds impressive, right?  Until you find out that it was a Chrsitan organization, not an academic one, that merely rented a hall on the Yale campus and invited a bunch of ID gurus to speak.  Or how about the Princeton Office of ISCID - sounds impressive, right?  Demsbki's organization associated with Princeton University?  Well, not really.   the 'Priniceton Office of ISCID' was really a post office box in Princeton, NJ - mail sent there was forwarded to Dembski in Texas...



OR is the blogger just alluding to deception here for effect?

Look at the name of the conference and tell me if it was a scientific meeting.

But do you see how Meyer has misled us about that conference? It wasn't a scientific meeting. It was a dialogue between atheists and theists.


What’s not scientific about that?

Your apologetics is sad.


Is an atheist not a scientist just because he believes there is no God? Does his belief system preclude him from objectivity?


Is a creationist not a fraud when he claims that a meeting set up to discuss atheism and theism was a scientific meeting?


Why didn't Meyer just tell us that? The session that Meyer attended was not a meeting of scientists for the purpose of discussing OOL research.


But it was. The attendees were scientists and they were discussing OOL research. What is this man on about?

I see...

So, I attend the annual meeting of Landscape Designers.  During a breakout session on herbicides, a few folks start chatting about life on Mars.  Later, one of the participants claims that he attended a meeting on Exobiology.

Fine by you, right?

And it gets worse. Meyer's claim that "other scientists became defensive and hostile" is contradicted by the report of Owen Gingerich, the Harvard astronomer and historian of science, who was present at the whole dialogue and wrote that "the entire dialogue was conducted with intelligence and good humor, with each side respecting while disagreeing with the philosophical orientation of their opponents."


Well perhaps the blogger isn’t hearing the whole story here. Maybe the dialogue was ‘in general’ filled with good humour but was at that point, mentioned by Meyer, ‘defensive and hostile’ and it just didn’t phase Gingerich. Maybe Gingerich was embarrassed by his colleagues defensive hostility and didn’t want that on record so he gave a general report leaving out what didn’t look good. The blogger is clearly biased towards Meyer so there’s a good chance he is taking sides and denying Meyer’s perspective because he knows how it makes the opposition look. Perhaps if we asked people like Thaxton and Kenyon how they felt about the reaction of the evolutionists at the point that Meyer describes, they might agree with Meyer?

Possibly, and if they did, I would have little reason to trust them, considering how Thaxton was innvolved with the 'Of Pandas and People' debacle..

I’ll have to go look at what others say before I decide what really happened.


sure you will...

while carefully obscuring the nature of the event, to the point that he writes of a "conference" to "bring together scientists from competing philosophical perspectives." I find that to be disingenuous. And quite sad.


Aaah, sad? That’s too bad. I’m pleased you believe this guy –he seems to be a poser to me which is why you like his blog and I think it smells of deception.

Right - obviously he is just out to spread his atheism by making charaltans look bad...


We don’t know that anybody carefully obscured the event. I assume it was held in a public venue and everybody knew who everybody else was as well as the title that discussed theists and atheist as the two opposing religious perspectives on the OOL.

Here is a blurb I found at the American Scientific Affiliation website (the ASA is a Christian group, if you didn't know):

2. Meanwhile, back at the North Fork in "Big D," another remarkable event was taking place, entitled "Christianity Challenges the University: A Dialogue of Theists and Atheists." Held at the Dallas Hilton February 7-10, the conference was cosponsored by Dallas Baptist University and the Institute for Research in Christianity and Contemporary Thought, an informal association of Christian thinkers. "Dialogue" brought together a truly amazing configuration of scholars in various disciplines. The event received little publicity but videotaping of all sessions may provide a wider outreach.


Such a major scientific meeting, that it received little publicity...

Let it go on:


The program began with a dinner and several short presentations on "Why I Am a Christian" by some of the Christian participants and a lecture on "The Necessity for Christianity" by English social historian Paul Johnson, author of Modem Times. The next day was devoted to panel discussions in philosophy (centering on "The Existence and Nature of God") and in the social sciences (on "The Nature of Man"). All panelists were identified as representing either "the theistic position" or "the atheistic position."


....

and in a follow up posting, here is the summary of the meeting described by Meyer:

In the "Dialogue of Theists and Atheists" held at the Dallas Hilton in February (see Jun/Jul Newsletter), a major portion of the day devoted to the natural sciences was given over to a wide-ranging discussion of "The Origin of Life," chaired by Charles Thaxton (institute for Thought and Ethics). On the theistic side were Charlie's co-authors of The Mystery of Life's Origin (Philosophical Library, 1984), Walter Bradley (Texas A&M) and Roger Olsen (Colorado School of Mines), along with Hubert Yockey (Aberdeen Proving Ground) and Dean Kenyon (San Francisco State). The atheistic position was represented by Russell Doolittle (UC San Diego), Clifford Matthews (U of Illinois at Chicago), Robert Shapiro (NYU), and William Thwaites (San Diego State).
We received good reports both from Charlie and from Owen Gingerich (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics), from which we've pieced together a blow-byblow account. Evidently Yockey led off wtih his objections to current chemical evolution scenarios based on his expertise in information theory. Thwaites and Doolittle reacted strongly to the kinds of probability calculations used (by Yockey) to argue that there's no way an informational polypeptide the size of a protein could be formed by chance in a billion years. [With good reason - such calculations are gibberish - D]

Dean Kenyon (co-author with Gary Steinman of the 1969 book, Biochemical Predestination) argued that realistic starting mixtures of chemicals do not yield the needed compounds, and that the assumption of a reducing atmosphere is not necessarily sound. Reflections on such problems caused Kenyon to do an about-face in the 1970's and adopt a "creationist" position.[baloney! - D] In response, Shapiro generally accepted the criticisms but thought the reducing atmosphere was "a small problem;" he argued that a chemistry of replication more elementary than that of the nucleic acids may have been wiped out by a later genetic takeover. But his plea was for sticking to the scientific method: "Let us not flee to a supernaturalistic explanation; let us not retreat from the laboratory."

Clifford Matthews, long a protagonist for a primeval chemistry leading directly to polymers, dramatically produced a bottled sample of such a reaction product based on HCN polymerization but containing real peptide bonds. According to Gingerich, Matthews called The Mystery of Life a brilliant book and summarized its critique of the standard chemical evolution scenario with "1)The evidence is weak, 2) the premises are wrong, and 3) the whole thing is impossible." Bradley could see how energy flow through a chemical system can produce polymers but was skeptical that theremodynamics would allow a generalized energy flow to yield the kind of information content contained in the sequence of biological proteins-without "control by an investigator." Matthews conceded that the thermodynamic arguments in the Thaxton-Bradley-Olsen book are persuasive, but claimed that a quite different pathway overcame the information theory argument.

Gingerich said that his report might "give the flavor of the discussion" but couldn't convey "the richness of the broth." Except for a few ad hominem remarks, "the entire dialogue was conducted with intelligence and good humor, with each side respecting while disagreeing with the philosophical orientation of their opponents." As a Christian participant, Owen said that he was sometimes dismayed to find himself in closer agreement with the atheists' views of science than with the dichotomy between "operation science" and "origin science" proposed in the epilogue of The Mystery of Life's Origin. Here is his response:

"I would say that physics and chemistry have long been experimental sciences in which repeatable events play a significant role, but astronomy, geology, and evolutionary biology have long been observational sciences, but nevertheless important parts of science. It is the duty of astronomers, geologists, and biologists just as much as tor physicists ano chemists to conceive and devise hypotheses for explaining in a coherent manner the world around us. It is part of the rules of this game to use rational but mechanistic procedures, and, in fact, science (as science) gives no program for determining that any part necessarily lies outside this domain; there is, in other words, no way for science to know when it is up against a blank wall where a unique miracle is ultimately the only route to understanding.

"in the Dallas dialogue the theistic biochemists seemed to be saying that there is no way for scientific mechanisms to account for the existence of life, while the atheists answered that, although the scientific explanation is still lacking, the quest is exciting and must go on. Thus, while everyone agreed that the scientific critique by the theists had much validity, the atheists were simply stimulated to work harder on the problems. And with that I found myself in considerable sympathy."


It looks to me like Meyer's take is a bit mellodramatic...

This book looks like folk science to me. It's already lowered my regard for its author. I hope it gets better. I really do.


Once again, a big aaah! To that. This guy sure knows how to make me cry.

Great reply...

Derwood Looks like we can expect what most of uis already expected - embellishment, misrepresentation, hyperbole, etc.


Where’s the embellishment? Are you sure? Misrepresentation?


Pretty sure - I've read several other reviews and I see the same thigns mentioned.  The target audience, of course, is a bit too gullible and too unsophisticated to see it - I understand that the DI actually sent out an email rwequest on its listserv urging the faithful to go to Amazon and hive it favorable reviews.  They do that quote a bit - a few years ago, Bill Dembski was 'outed' as a frequent positive-reviewer of his own work when a glitch on the Amazon.ca website accidentally listed the emails of the reviewers...


This blogger sure seems full of it?

Why - because you worship Meyer?

Can you defend that accusation?

And hyperbole? That is your forte Derwood, you should be appreciating it.


If you say so - I'm sure that you will be able to provide an example or two of me using hyperbole, as I have been able to present support for my exposure of your ignroance, for example.

IOW - the usual creationist tripe.


You must mean the usual evolutionist tripe –must be a typo here.

No, typos are not completely wrong words.  But it is cute - in a pathetic sort fo way -  how you attack fellow Christians when they do not fall in line...



(Edited by derwood 2/9/2010 at 11:09 AM).

(Edited by derwood 2/9/2010 at 12:56 PM).


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:02 AM on February 8, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The difference, I think, is that I can't imagine mistaking a virus for a bacterium; it's like mistaking a pencil for a sequoia.


Is this guy seriously suggesting that Meyer doesn't know the difference between bacteria and visuses?
Is this a serious critique?
Has he run out of things to complain about?

BTW Derwood, would you mind fixing up your post above -I hate reading screwed up posts, it's offputting and I so enjoy your posts that I wouldn't want to miss it.



(Edited by Lester10 2/9/2010 at 02:20 AM).


-------
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: 02:14 AM on February 9, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:14 AM on February 9, 2010 :
The difference, I think, is that I can't imagine mistaking a virus for a bacterium; it's like mistaking a pencil for a sequoia.


Is this guy seriously suggesting that Meyer doesn't know the difference between bacteria and visuses?


Why does that surprise you?  He is not a biologist.

Is this a serious critique?
Has he run out of things to complain about?


He explained that it is a pet peeve of his and in fact he indicated that non-biologists would probably not see what the big deal is.

Like you just did.



BTW Derwood, would you mind fixing up your post above -I hate reading screwed up posts, it's offputting and I so enjoy your posts that I wouldn't want to miss it.


I tried, I must have missed a quote tag.  Of course, there are 4 or 5 other posts of mine that perfectly fine, format-wise, that you've not bothered replying to...


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:54 PM on February 9, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



Derwood

Meyer's 'new' book "Signature in the Cell," which as we are probably aware, is being heralded (primarily by those associated with the DI) as the great proof of ID.

Lester
I thought we didn’t talk about proof in science?

Derwood
We don't - it is pretty clear that I was referring to what IDcreationists claim.


Yes, it was clear from Derwood statement that he was referring to what Creationists claim.  

I would also point out that I have never heard that ID is actually a scientific theory - it has nothing to do with science.  It is merely Creationism pretending to be science for the confusion of the lay-public.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 3:05 PM on February 9, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:14 AM on February 9, 2010 :
The difference, I think, is that I can't imagine mistaking a virus for a bacterium; it's like mistaking a pencil for a sequoia.


Is this guy seriously suggesting that Meyer doesn't know the difference between bacteria and visuses?
Is this a serious critique?


Yes it is, perhaps you could quote some passage from SITC that demonstrates he fully understands the difference and put this matter to rest.



-------
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: 09:22 AM on February 10, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Chapters 4 and 5 are up - not looking so great for Meyer.  


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:07 AM on February 15, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OrionI would also point out that I have never heard that ID is actually a scientific theory - it has nothing to do with science.


ID is science because it uses the scientific method to make its claims. It detects design using empirical data to test its positive predictions and uses well established scientific methods of the historical sciences in order to detect the types of complexity which we understand , from present day observations are derived from intelligent causes.

It is merely Creationism pretending to be science for the confusion of the lay-public.


It differs fundamentally from creationism in that it does not start with a religious text but with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what scientific inferences can be drawn from that evidence.
It detects design, not designers.

It may have implications for religion, so does Darwinism, but it is not based on religion.

ApoapsisYes it is, perhaps you could quote some passage from SITC that demonstrates he fully understands the difference and put this matter to rest.


Perhaps you could read the book and then try to tell me truthfully that you don't think he knows the difference between a virus and a bacteria.



(Edited by Lester10 2/17/2010 at 04:11 AM).


-------
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: 04:02 AM on February 17, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:02 AM on February 17, 2010 :
ID is science because it uses the scientific method to make its claims. It detects design using empirical data to test its positive predictions and uses well established scientific methods of the historical sciences in order to detect the types of complexity which we understand , from present day observations are derived from intelligent causes.


What is this "empirical data" that "positively" supports ID? The only thing I've ever seen from ID is IC, which has failed miserably.

It differs fundamentally from creationism in that it does not start with a religious text but with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what scientific inferences can be drawn from that evidence.
It detects design, not designers.


Um, I would love to write my own words in response to this, but I think Judge Jones from the Dover trial says it much better.

The judge in the Dover trial specifically referred to Pandas in his decision, stating:
“As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times, were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content .... The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from “creation” to “intelligent design” occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court’s important Edwards decision.”

—Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District[59]




-------
"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: 04:39 AM on February 17, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:02 AM on February 17, 2010 :
ApoapsisYes it is, perhaps you could quote some passage from SITC that demonstrates he fully understands the difference and put this matter to rest.


Perhaps you could read the book and then try to tell me truthfully that you don't think he knows the difference between a virus and a bacteria.


When I can get a copy for a fair price, say fifty cents to a dollar, I just might do that.  For the time being, I'll not participate in their flock-fleecing the gullible exercise.

Meanwhile, you inability to provide such a quote is noted by the lurkers, and I am satisfied with a review by an evangelical Christian biologist.


(Edited by Apoapsis 2/17/2010 at 08:00 AM).


-------
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: 07:58 AM on February 17, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:02 AM on February 17, 2010 :
OrionI would also point out that I have never heard that ID is actually a scientific theory - it has nothing to do with science.


ID is science because it uses the scientific method to make its claims.


How does one use the scientific method to MAKE claims?



It detects design using empirical data


Actually, it 'detects' design by employing analogies and idiosyncratic efinitions and haphazardly applied 'calculations.'



to test its positive predictions and uses well established scientific methods of the historical sciences in order to detect the types of complexity which we understand , from present day observations are derived from intelligent causes.


IOW - it makes analogies to human contrivances, and by using metaphoprical language, claims that non-human produced entities are 'just like' human contrivances, therefore, voila!



It is merely Creationism pretending to be science for the confusion of the lay-public.


It differs fundamentally from creationism in that it does not start with a religious text but with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what scientific inferences can be drawn from that evidence.
It detects design, not designers.


Apparently you don't know what a “cdesign proponentsists” is...

You may want to read up on the hiostory of the movement you are supporting.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:27 AM on February 17, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Orion
I would also point out that I have never heard that ID is actually a scientific theory - it has nothing to do with science.
ID is science because it uses the scientific method to make its claims.
That's not what the scientific method is for but... Ok, show us.

Defend that claim. You don't even need to use the scientific method to defend it. Just show us.

I imagine you believe you're familiar with the scientific method in order to make that claim. So show us.

Because you keep saying lots of things and you never defend them.

Show us a claim, and show us the steps. In a new thread, preferably.

I dare you.

It detects design using empirical data to test its positive predictions and uses well established scientific methods of the historical sciences
Historical sciences? WTF are you talking about?

If it makes predictions, ok, show me. Go ahead. Don't just toss claims.
in order to detect the types of complexity which we understand , from present day observations are derived from intelligent causes.
From historical sciences?

Whatever... Show us.

Put up or shut up.

It is merely Creationism pretending to be science for the confusion of the lay-public.
It differs fundamentally from creationism in that it does not start with a religious text but with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what scientific inferences can be drawn from that evidence.
Blah blah blah. Show us. Or shut up already.

It's about time you quit making empty claims.
It detects design, not designers.
Start a thread and show us.

If you know what you're talking about, of course.

It may have implications for religion, so does Darwinism, but it is not based on religion.
I understand. That makes sense. But i haven't seen anything like what you say.

Can you please show me?

It's tiresome reading all of your claims, knowing how empty and orphanic they are.

Apoapsis
Yes it is, perhaps you could quote some passage from SITC that demonstrates he fully understands the difference and put this matter to rest.
Perhaps you could read the book and then try to tell me truthfully that you don't think he knows the difference between a virus and a bacteria.
Don't make us read books that seem good to you.
You imply that you understand the content. Well show us. COME ON!



-------
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: 7:30 PM on February 18, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

derwood
Lester
Orion
It is merely Creationism pretending to be science for the confusion of the lay-public.
It differs fundamentally from creationism in that it does not start with a religious text but with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what scientific inferences can be drawn from that evidence.
It detects design, not designers.


Apparently you don't know what a “cdesign proponentsists” is...
You may want to read up on the hiostory of the movement you are supporting.
Haha! Yeah, i heard about this.



They kept the typos too.

Typos are an amazing source of information about, well, source.

Creationists have this tendency to circumvent crediting the authors of their own claims. They just copy and paste. But they're not particularly good at this, so mistakes get copied along the way.

Sometimes i see a creationist make a claim (or even a question) using words that seem strange coming from him. Sometimes the text includes a typo which allows me to know EXACTLY where he stole it from.

You can trace their silly claims in much the same way you trace lineages of reproductive populations. ^_^

Isn't it ironic?



-------
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: 7:47 PM on February 18, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:




It is merely Creationism pretending to be science for the confusion of the lay-public.

It differs fundamentally from creationism in that it does not start with a religious text but with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what scientific inferences can be drawn from that evidence.
It detects design, not designers.

Apparently you don't know what a “cdesign proponentsists” is...


Apparently Lester did not follow the Dover trial, nor does he appear to be aware of the the fiasco of 'Of Pandas and People'.

Lester - there are two main proponents arguing for ID - William Dembski 'Design Inference' and Michael Behe's 'Irreducible Complexity'.  Both of these ideas fail as viable scientific hypotheses.  Both base their claims on negative results - Dembski bases his 'Design Inference' on misconstrued probability, and Behe's IC is based on argument from ingorance.

Their flaws are amply pointed out by peers in their respective fields of mathematics and the biological sciences.  

ID doesn't even make it to first base in the scientific community.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:02 AM on February 19, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp
ID is science because it uses the scientific method to make its claims.

That's not what the scientific method is for but... Ok, show us.


Observations: intelligent agents produce complex specified information.
Systems with large amounts of complex specified information invariably originate from an intelligent source.

Hypothesis: if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI

Experiment: A testable form of CSI is Irreducible complexity which exists in systems that have several interacting parts that contribute to basic function.
By reverse engineering bio structures, we can see whether all the parts are required for function.

Conclusion: IC systems have no evolutionary pathway wherein they could remain functional during each small proposed Darwinian step.

Historical sciences? WTF are you talking about?


The macroevolution that evolutionists insist has to have happened and the ID that I propose to be the real story of how we arrived as human beings on this planet, is all historical science, once-off, unobservable so we have to apply the principle of uniformatarianism “the present is the key to the past” to our observations in the present.
In ID we seek to detect in nature the sorts of complexity which we know historically have always arisen as a result of intelligence. This is an empirical investigation, not a faith-based one.

It differs fundamentally from creationism in that it does not start with a religious text but with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what scientific inferences can be drawn from that evidence.
Blah blah blah. Show us. Or shut up already.


It detects design, not designers.
Start a thread and show us.


ID doesn’t study designers only the evidence of design –that is natural objcts that bear an informational signature that indicates that an intelligent cause was involved in their causation.

ID can detect design but cannot infer designers as that is a theological argument, not an empirical one.



 




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


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:32 AM on February 19, 2010 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Observations: intelligent agents produce complex specified information.
Systems with large amounts of complex specified information invariably originate from an intelligent source.

Hypothesis: if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI

Experiment: A testable form of CSI is Irreducible complexity which exists in systems that have several interacting parts that contribute to basic function.
By reverse engineering bio structures, we can see whether all the parts are required for function.

Conclusion: IC systems have no evolutionary pathway wherein they could remain functional during each small proposed Darwinian step.

OK Lester, give us an example of an irreducibly complex system.


-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 07:52 AM on February 19, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:32 AM on February 19, 2010 :
Wisp
ID is science because it uses the scientific method to make its claims.

That's not what the scientific method is for but... Ok, show us.


Observations: intelligent agents produce complex specified information.


Hypothesis: if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI


How high a level?  Is there a cut-off point between intelligence-derived CSI and naturally occurring CSI?  If so, who documented this and where can I read about it?


Experiment: A testable form of CSI is Irreducible complexity which exists in systems that have several interacting parts that contribute to basic function.


Like a Roman Arch.


By reverse engineering bio structures, we can see whether all the parts are required for function.


We can reverse engineer a Roman Arch and see that all of its parts are required fo rit to function.  I guess Jebus must have created all such structures de novo from nothing?


Conclusion: IC systems have no evolutionary pathway wherein they could remain functional during each small proposed Darwinian step.


FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT.

You assume your conclusion AND you misrepresent what evolution would entail.

This 'science' requires things of evolution that evolution does not postulate.

Look at the assumptions - you assume that structure X, exhibiting Y-amount of CSI, first of all could not have evolved in the first place; if it did, and it exhibits IC, then there must be a pathway through which we get structure X and each step must have been functional.

What is the justification for ANY of that?

Where is it demonstrated that all intermediates molecules/parts/structures must have been 'functional' (please define functional for us in this context)?

Have you not heard of the Neutral Theory?  Do you people not know that even other YECs allow for neutral heritable variation?

And what if such pathways are discovered AFTER you've made these proclamations?  Will you admit you werwe wrong?

History says - no way.  YECs NEVER admit error.  Look at the Bergman genome/gene duplication issue.  

And besides the locially fallacious argument employed in your IDcreationist 'science', it is, in the end, just one Big Dumb Argument via Analogy.

Let us construct an equally 'logical' syllogism like the Doc just did to show how stupid it is:


Observations:  Swiss cheese has holes in it
The moon also appears to have holes in it

Hypothesis:  the moon is made of swiss cheese

Experiment: Since there exist cheese balls, we canmake a ball of swiss cheese and see if it looks like the moon

conclusion: yes, the moon is made of swiss cheese because we made a ball out of it and it looked sort of like the moon.




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:19 AM on February 19, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Wisp
ID is science because it uses the scientific method to make its claims.

That's not what the scientific method is for but... Ok, show us.
Observations: intelligent agents produce complex specified information.
OK, so far.

I don't know what that stands for, but ok. Probably anything deserving such grandiloquent name is man-made. I'd like for you to measure it and show me though.

By the way, your quote is wrong. You made me say what was said by you.

Nothing serious.
Systems with large amounts of complex specified information invariably originate from an intelligent source.
Hum...
Hypothesis: if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI
Er... What??

Why would you even postulate such a dumb thing?

It's demonstrably wrong about man-made things. They can be really simple.

Apparently you postulate this from your first axiom.

"If P then Q" does not translate to "If Q then P".

Only if the first statement was that EVERY SINGLE SYSTEM THAT ORIGINATE FROM AN INTELLIGENT SOURCE contained high levels of CSI, then your second statement MIGHT have some merit.

But, the way things are, it simply does not follow.

By the way, show me a measure of that thing you talk about. I thought you could never measure anything helpful for your position, but i'd love to be shown otherwise.

Let's go with a painting.

The first one i can find.

Found one:


How much of it does it contain?

A spiderweb.


Does it contain any? How can you tell?

Experiment: A testable form of CSI
(Something you have not yet defined, don't forget)
is Irreducible complexity
Why?
which exists in systems that have several interacting parts that contribute to basic function.
Ok, ok. But you need to establish something first.

WHY?

Why is it a testable form of CSI?

What is CSI?

By reverse engineering bio structures, we can see whether all the parts are required for function.
So?

Conclusion: IC systems have no evolutionary pathway wherein they could remain functional during each small proposed Darwinian step.
Why?

How can you tell?

If something that we see really had no possible evolutionary pathway then it would really be a serious blow to the ToE.
But Irreducible complexity doesn't demonstrate that at all. Not on its own.

Something could grow in complexity till it finds a new function. Then its complexity can dwindle to maintain just the new cool function. Some scaffolding process.

Why not?

Evolution consists of some processes that ADD variability, and some that REMOVE variability.

The same could well be possible for structures.

But can you present a case? Something specific we could talk about?

It detects design using empirical data to test its positive predictions and uses well established scientific methods of the historical sciences
Historical sciences? WTF are you talking about?
The macroevolution that evolutionists insist has to have happened and the ID that I propose to be the real story of how we arrived as human beings on this planet,
ID doesn't say much about that.

It says lots of things that actually refute your position. Like weapons and diseases and other nasty stuff having been intelligently designed too.

But, in any case, what are you talking about?

How can you detect design using historical science?

Can you please show me?

I wish i didn't even have to ask.
is all historical science, once-off, unobservable so we have to apply the principle of uniformatarianism “the present is the key to the past” to our observations in the present.
Yeah, yeah, yeah... You said it detects design using scientific methods of the historical sciences.

Show me.

In ID we seek to detect in nature the sorts of complexity which we know historically have always arisen as a result of intelligence. This is an empirical investigation, not a faith-based one.
Nice claim.

Show me.


It differs fundamentally from creationism in that it does not start with a religious text but with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what scientific inferences can be drawn from that evidence.
Blah blah blah. Show us. Or shut up already.


It detects design, not designers.
¡Start a thread and show us.
ID doesn’t study designers only the evidence of design
Oh, Gee... You misread me...

I asked for you to start a thread and show us, and you accidentally read "Repeat yourself". ^_^

–that is natural objcts that bear an informational signature that indicates that an intelligent cause was involved in their causation.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Show me.

Pay attention. I didn't ask for you to repeat yourself, but to show me.

ID can detect design
Nice claim.

Show me.
but cannot infer designers as that is a theological argument, not an empirical one.
I don't care. Just show me.

Show me how it can infer design, step by step, without false premises.



-------
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: 7:40 PM on February 19, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A recent reply on the Quintessence blog, in the section on the review of CHapter 6:

"My thoughts as I went through these chapters were similar: Meyer doesn't even understand this at an undergrad level. He's basically reading a college text, misunderstanding a bunch of it, and then deciding he has the chops to declare a whole field of active research bogus. "


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:31 PM on February 24, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Doc?

You there?


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:03 PM on March 8, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, my goodness!! I had forgotten all about this one too!!

Just when i thought we were getting somewhere, finally, after all these years!!

Lester! Man! Let's keep it going!

I don't wanna repost my last post...

Can you please read it and give it an answer?

I mean, you finally were in a disposition to show me stuff. Or at least that's how it looked like.

Oh, in the thread "She's like "This is not true"' you say something about information, AGAIN.

You say:
The origin of biological information is not addressed – it is not mentioned. Kids are supposed to assume that information can come quite easily from nowhere.
Here i am. Addressing the issue that you won't address. Still 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: 5:03 PM on March 8, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And waiting.

(Edited by wisp 3/8/2010 at 7:44 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: 7:43 PM on March 8, 2010 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
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.