derwood
|
 |    |  Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
I see you keep missing this, les:
Quote from Lester10 at 11:19 PM on May 22, 2010 :
| ReMine wrote a book in 1993 or 1997, can't remember which. He claims that since nobody has criticized it "in ink" that his claims stand….. When it is pointed out to him that he wrote a book and that nobody really cares what he wrote |
|
Oh no, this is not at all like Remime. There are a lot of critics (most of whom have clearly not read the book and thus are unqualified to comment meaningfully) but the critics nitpick on the edges and don’t criticize the scientific claims. |
|
So you believe - let me guess, you've been reading Meyer's "response to critics" website wherein I am sure he claims, over and over, that no critics are addressing his 'scientific claims'. Just like how Behe 'responds' to critics by claiming the same thing all the while simply ignoring the demolition of his claims.
I've seen Meyer's whine-fest, and it is standard right-wing YEC fare.
That’s because they can’t … without looking stupid.
|
|
Like you do when you argue against evolution with your pathetically foolish parrotted and plagairized claims from Werner and Pye and Sarfati?
If you are so impressed with Meyer's latest repackaged old claims, how about YOU present one or two that you are actually able to discuss here and let us have at it?
Too scared that you'll be embarrassed again?
Derwood
I've linked to one actual biologist that is taking the time to review it chapter by chapter and the best you can do is call him names. |
|
I will give your critic credit, Derwood, he’s one of very few that have read some of the book. However his critique is mainly personal and his exposes of typos seems to miss the point of the scientific argument.
|
|
It would appear that you have not actually bothered to read his reviews. Typical. It seems that others were impressed enough to invite him to a panel discussion with Meyer. It was a rigged discussion, sponsored by Biola, of course, but Meyer actually conceded that some of his claims were not what he and his followers made them out to be...
I think the problem is that he can’t answer the science so he has to search desperately for things like ‘virus’ written instead of ‘bacteria’ once on one page incorrectly. It is a thoroughly inadequate response. |
|
I see you are intent to ignore why he mentioned that:
***
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).
***
You have also ignored documentation of Meyer's hyperbole and embellishment, such as:
***
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.
***
When I popsted that before, you merely dismissed it all, accusing Mattson of being the one that was embellishing, despite the fact that he provided sources that would corroborate his account, including YEC Thaxton's own.
But a dutiful YEC Meyer worshipper like you must proptect your hero at any and all costs.
Strained illogical claim ala Meyer:
Baseball bats are made of wood by humans. Humans are intelligent. Wood is therefore evidence of intelligence.
Brilliant! |
|
That’s like saying that the material component of DNA is evidence for intelligence showing that you missed the point.
Don’t worry, you’re not alone.
|
|
What does that even mean? I am not the one claiming DNA is intelligently designed...
The point is not that the material DNA must have been designed but that the DNA code superimposed on the material structure appears to have been intelligently designed.
|
|
But that is question begging. Why can't you tell? How does it 'appear' that way - because you are predisposed to think it is? Because you people actually think analogies are evidence?
Shame you decided to ignore so much of what I wrote. No worries - I will simply re-post it as often as needed to let any interested reader see what kind of 'christian' you are:
Kimura demonstrated mathematically in 1961 that adaptive evolution generates new genetic information. You cannot have functional information without genetic information.
By definition, a statement is not an ad hominem if 2. it is not irrelevant |
|
So it is an ad hominem if it is irrelevant –in which case it is an ad hominem after all.
|
|
You have a way of simply omitting statements that demonstrate your shortcomings. Allow me:
By definition, a statement is not an ad hominem if: 1. the statement is not being used to as an argument 2. it is not irrelevant
When I described you as a plagiarist, it was not my [i]argument and it is true. You plagiarized Jon Sarfati - plagiarism is the act of presenting the work of others without attribution, i.e., as your own. I clearly demonstrated it in this thread (and elsewhere).
[/i]
Previously, I had written:
No, it is a 'case' via questionbegging, idiosyncratic and unorthodox application of information theory and genetics, argument via analogy, and special pleading.
Then again, you are nothing but an underinformed plagiarst who cannot seem to produce a single original argument or claim and cannot even discuss the issues YOU bring up. So it is no wonder that you so often, after shooting your wad with plagiarized gibberish and paraphrased nonsense, end up running off.
Note two things - you simply ignored my actual argument and went on to the second half of the statement, which was merely commentary and was NOT part of my argument. You lose times 2.
That you are a documented plagiarist is both relevant as to your trustworthiness and ability to produce your own arguments (if you coud make your own arguments, there should be little impetus to plagiarize); I was not using your plagiarism AS an argument.
So, no, it was not an ad hominem. Again, you people should actually try to learn what those big words mean BEFORE you use them.
| plagiarism is the act of presenting the work of others without attribution, i.e., as your own. I clearly demonstrated it in this thread (and elsewhere). |
|
What if I’ve changed it here and there and it can no longer be considered to be Jon Sarfati’s? |
|
What if?
pla·gia·rism
–noun
1.the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.
2.something used and represented in this manner.
I wouldn’t want to attribute something to him that he is not responsible for, would I now? |
|
I am astounded that a person claiming a doctorate does not understand what plagiarism is.
But let us compare - I will put what you 'wrote' and what Sarfati wrote next to each other for comparison
***
Lester:
•The creationist Robert Boyle (1627–1691) fathered modern chemistry and demolished the Aristotelian four-elements theory. He also funded lectures to defend Christianity and sponsored missionaries and Bible translation work.
Sarfati:
The creationist Robert Boyle (1627–1691) fathered modern chemistry and demolished the Aristotelian four-elements theory. He also funded lectures to defend Christianity and sponsored missionaries and Bible translation work.
SIMILARITY: 100%
***
Lester:
•Cell phones depend on electromagnetic radiation theory, which was pioneered by creationist James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879)
Sarfati:
Cell phones depend on electromagnetic radiation theory, which was pioneered by creationist James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879)
SIMILARITY: 100%
***
Lester:
•Computing machines were invented by Charles Babbage (1791–1871), who was not a biblical creationist but was a creationist in the broad sense. He ‘believed that the study of the works of nature with scientific precision, was a necessary and indispensable preparation to the understanding and interpreting their testimony of the wisdom and goodness of their Divine Author.’
Sarfati:
Computing machines were invented by Charles Babbage (1791–1871), who was not a biblical creationist but was a creationist in the broad sense. He ‘believed that the study of the works of nature with scientific precision, was a necessary and indispensable preparation to the understanding and interpreting their testimony of the wisdom and goodness of their Divine Author.’
SIMILARITY: 100%
***
Lester:
•The creationist brothers Orville (1871–1948) and Wilbur Wright (1867–1912) invented the airplane after studying God’s design of birds.
Sarfati:
The creationist brothers Orville (1871–1948) and Wilbur Wright (1867–1912) invented the airplane after studying God’s design of birds.
SIMILARITY: 100%
***
Lester:
•The theory of planetary orbits was invented by Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), famous for claiming that his discoveries were ‘thinking God’s thoughts after him’.
Sarfati:
The theory of planetary orbits was invented by Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), famous for claiming that his discoveries were ‘thinking God’s thoughts after him’.
SIMILARITY: 100%
***
Lester:
The theory of gravity and the laws of motion, essential for the moon landings, was discovered by the creationist Isaac Newton (1642/3–1727).
Sarfati:
The theory of gravity and the laws of motion, essential for the moon landings, was discovered by the creationist Isaac Newton (1642/3–1727).
SIMILARITY: 100%
***
Lester:
•The moon landing program was headed by Wernher von Braun (1912–1977), who believed in a designer and opposed evolution.
Sarfati:
The moon landing program was headed by Wernher von Braun (1912–1977), who believed in a designer and opposed evolution. And a biblical creationist, James Irwin (1930–1991), walked on the moon.
SIMILARITY: 100%
***
I’ll not bother to mention that NONE of the people mentioned were biologists by any stretch of the imagination, so Sarfati is engaging in a big bait and switch game.
But you imply that your copied sections are changed a bit from Sarfati’s original – where?
You snipped off a sentence from one of them. Do you really think that makes it your own work?
Who, exactly, do you think you are fooling? I sit on the university's Academic Integrity Committee - we routinely find students guilty of academic dishonesty and send them to the Honor Board (which typically expells them) for far less egregious acts of plagiarism/dishonesty than what you've been doing.
And YOU should know better, if you really are what you claim. The, I don't suppose mail order diploma mills really care much about such things...
| You people should learn what the things you accuse people of actually mean. |
|
So should you.
|
|
Ironic that you would employ projection at this point.
| Wood and Wise ARE YECs - they state clearly that there are YECs because of their pathological devotion to Scripture above all else, they simply admit that the evidence is not in their favor. |
|
Those are some of the stupidest people I ever heard of then. |
|
Right - Wise's Harvard doctorate - a REAL doctorate, in Paleontology, and he is just a stupid guy. Wood, who leads the Baraminology Study group, yup, just a stupid guy. Lester the TROOO creationist with his mail order fake degree - the plagiarist, the guy who relies entirely on erroneous arguments made by clueless/dishonest YECs in books - only HE knows whats what.
Your arrogant elitism knows no bounds, does it?
Two and two is not making four here. If you clearly see the evidence against your view point, you give it up. |
|
Not when you put God first. Isn't that what Faith is all about? It seems to me that theirs is stronger than yours.
The problem is that I can so clearly see the evidence against evolution and they say (according to you) that they can’t. |
|
If you can see this evidence so clearly, why do you have such a hard time articulating it?
I’m afraid they’re trying about as hard as you are to see beyond the naturalistic bias that saturates evolutionary science OR they haven’t been handed all the data and haven’t yet seen that the evidence supports YEC’s so much better than it does evolution. |
|
Right, they just don't understand the evidence for YEC....
‘My favourite evidence for creation!’ by Kurt Wise
Director of the Center for Origins Research/Associate Professor of Science (Bryan College)
Todd Wood
Your credentials are?
| So, I have to wonder why you even disucss the issue. You clearly are nto open to allowing even the possibility thet you or your handlers are even the slightest bit wrong about anything |
|
You describe your own problem perfectly. Call it projection. |
|
I do?
I am not the one who wrote:
"A creationist either believes in divine creation by God or else he isn’t a creationist. "
"You see, the Bible is the authority, men are the fallen ones who believe what they prefer and always have done. That’s why we have the Bible – to help us to stick to the truth when our pride and arrogance is getting in the way; to remind us that ‘a day’ is ‘a day’ when we are tempted to believe in evolution..."
You really want to claim that I am projecting?
| These explosions that last millions of years and do, in fact, leave precursors and such. |
|
No the ones where everything appears fully functional, completely original and with no sign of any precursors.
|
|
What does a partially functional structure look like?
Simply asserting over and over that
you have evidence and then not being able to produce any make syou look moronic and sad. |
|
What about the Cambrian explosion. |
|
What about it? why do you think there SHOULD be the evidence you demand?
Why don’t you ever answer my evidence?
|
|
What evidence? You mean the totally unrealistic, silly, naive demands for a complete unbroken chain of fossils of every single intermediate that ever lived, showing half-this and half-that, partially functional this and partically functional that?
That is not evidence, that is your scientific naievete shining brightly.
Present some actual evidence and i will discuss it, but claiming that there should be this and that - when what you think there should be is a caricature and why you think it should be available shows your shallow understanding of things lile geology and taphonomy - I will simply point out that your 'evidence' is not actually evidence and your questions and demands are premised on ignorance.
| I guess you forgot that I STARTED 2 threads on Meyer's propaganda, and you've bailed from both of them. |
|
Not true. I’ve been answering all the Meyer threads that are relevant including this one. |
|
It is true. I've been bumping them for weeks.
Isn’t this what we’re doing –discussing Meyer’s arguments while you drag Archaeopteryx in to deviate attention from the DNA argument?
|
|
What DNA argument? Remember I started a thread for you on that, also, and all you seemed able to do was parrot Werner's stupid claims about museum displays and whales?
All you are doing in this thread is parrotting your new hero's book and dismissing/ignoring anything presented that counters it.
You are apparently unable to actually discuss anything.
| I have discussed the "informaiton" issue plenty, but you seem capable only of plagiarizing, paraphrasing and parrotting your heroes and seem totally incapable of discussing anything on your own. |
|
So why are you trying to distract me with Archie on an information thread? |
|
To remind you of all the other topics that you bring up because you read about it in some YEC book, couldn't actually handle the material, and ran off, like you'll be doing in this thread soon.
I’ve been discussing it in my own words and you keep insisting that I’m not –what is your problem? |
|
'Your own words' appears to me to mean that you are paraphrasing Meyer's claim and ignoring anything we write in response only to defer to your hero's claims.
Changing the subject I suspect.
|
|
Trying to get you back onto subjects you bailed from - subjects YOU brought up!
| And to reiterate, I have discussed plenty re: informatiton and DNAs and all you an muster is plagiarized quotes, paraphrases from your hero, and shopworn analogies and assertions. |
|
You are so repetitive and transparent. |
|
Yes, I am transparent. I like it that way - I do not like to hide behined plagiarism and the skirts of my heroes.
| You will note that I am here. |
|
So am I.
Now show me your naturalistic way of generating functional information. |
|
Mutation and natural selection.
Show us your way of generating it supernaturalistically - oh, right, Yahweh did it.
-------
Lester:
"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..." |
| |
Posts: 1355 | Posted: 4:44 PM on May 31, 2010 | IP
|
|
Lester10
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Derwood
In a language code, what is the 'meaning' if you see a sentence like this:
"The dog ran fast"
and then see anopther sentence like this:
"The dog ran ran fast"?
Does the second sentence have a different meaning form the first? Is the effect of the sentences any different? |
|
It still means the same if you can see past the error. There are correction mechanisms in DNA and I expect the extent of the fault’s effect depends on how bad the error was and where it happened.
Do you see that “The dog ran fast” conveys something purposeful as opposed to an arbitrary line up of letters of the alphabet like “dew kik coi kjhg”?
Can you see the difference or not?
| Lester Neither can DNA be demonstrated to come about via natural processes. |
|
Derwood So Yahweh really was floating about in space putting those purines and pyrimidines in the Murcheson meteor. |
|
DNA Derwood, not purines and pyramidines.
You purposefully come back with nonsense and then imagine that it is a comeback of note.Purines and pyramidines are like alphabet letters as opposed to Shakespeare.
Alphabet letters line up randomly. Shakespeare requires intelligence and organization.
Purines and pyramidines only rely on chemical laws of attraction for their formation.
DNA, on the other hand, has a purposeful line up of nucleotide bases based on no preferential bonding meaning that it is inexplicable how the coding for specific purposeful proteins came about. It requires intelligence.
Chemists trying to copy DNA have to work intelligently while they are attempting to copy it as they cannot do it with the laws of chemical bonding alone –not by a long shot.
Tell me you’re too stupid to understand that.
-------
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: 1308 | Posted: 09:04 AM on June 1, 2010 | IP
|
|
waterboy
|
| | Report Post
|
Regular
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Lester
Do you see that “The dog ran fast” conveys something purposeful as opposed to an arbitrary line up of letters of the alphabet like “dew kik coi kjhg”? |
|
Looks to me like they carry similar amounts of information.
One is a proper English sentence... but meaningless in the absence of a dog.
The other might be meaningful... but not in English. It might have a 'proper sentence' in some other communication protocol of which I am unaware.
I do know that the English sentence did NOT come from God. Alas it only came from Lester... who actually IS bound by all the usual laws of nature so I can conclude that the English sentence had a natural 'original cause'.
-------
Charis kai Eirene |
| |
Posts: 209 | Posted: 09:54 AM on June 1, 2010 | IP
|
|
derwood
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from Lester10 at 09:04 AM on June 1, 2010 :
Derwood
In a language code, what is the 'meaning' if you see a sentence like this:
"The dog ran fast"
and then see anopther sentence like this:
"The dog ran ran fast"?
Does the second sentence have a different meaning form the first? Is the effect of the sentences any different? |
|
It still means the same if you can see past the error. |
|
Why do you say it is an error?
There are correction mechanisms in DNA and I expect the extent of the fault’s effect depends on how bad the error was and where it happened.
|
|
Non-sequitur.
I did not ask about 'errors' and correctin, I asked about the meaning.
You have again demonstrated the limits of the language analogies employed in anti-darwinism.
Sure, we can look at a sentence with a word repeated, or an entire sentence repeated, and conclude that it is the reult of an 'error' and that we can deduce the 'original meaning' by overlooking the error.
But can 'we' do that with coding DNA sequence? And if not, does that change the meaning of the gene (in this case, including regulatory sequence)?
Do you see that “The dog ran fast” conveys something purposeful as opposed to an arbitrary line up of letters of the alphabet like “dew kik coi kjhg”? |
|
I do not know that the letters you presented ARE arbitrary. Perhaps they are a code that I do not understand. Were you to pickup the printout of an Enigma 'spy' machine, doubtless, you would see nothing but a string of arbitrary alphanumerics. But if you understood the code, you would see a specific message.
Can you see the difference or not?
|
|
Yes, I can see the difference between language analogies and actual genetics. Can you?
| Lester Neither can DNA be demonstrated to come about via natural processes. |
|
Derwood So Yahweh really was floating about in space putting those purines and pyrimidines in the Murcheson meteor. |
|
DNA Derwood, not purines and pyramidines. |
|
Don't you know what purines and pyrimidines are?
Purines and triazines in the Murchison meteorite
Abstract
Two samples of the Murchison C2 chondrite were examined for organic nitrogen compounds, using mass spectrometry as well as paper and thin-layer chromatography. Under mild extraction conditions (water or formic acid) only aliphatic amines and C2-C6 alkylpyridines were seen; the latter may be contaminants. Under drastic extraction conditions (hot, 3–6 M HCl or CF3COOH), a variety of basic nitrogen compounds appeared, in the following amounts (ppm): adenine (15), guanine (5), melamine (20), cyanuric acid (20–30), guanylurea (30–45), urea (25), etc. Apparently these compounds are present mainly in macromolecular material, and are released only upon acid hydrolysis.
You purposefully come back with nonsense and then imagine that it is a comeback of note.Purines and pyramidines are like alphabet letters as opposed to Shakespeare.
Alphabet letters line up randomly. Shakespeare requires intelligence and organization.
|
|
I think you think DNA means the extant sequence of nucleotides, is that correct?
DNA is NOT the genome, DNA is a polynucloeotide.
Thus, since I know what DNA is, when you make the question begging claim that DNA needs a mind, to me, that means you are referring to the organic compound itself. If you mean something else, you should write something else, but do not blame me for responding to what you actually wrote.
Purines and pyramidines only rely on chemical laws of attraction for their formation.
DNA, on the other hand, has a purposeful line up of nucleotide bases based on no preferential bonding meaning that it is inexplicable how the coding for specific purposeful proteins came about. |
|
DNA is deoxyribonucleic acid, an organic compound.
The rest of your statement is just presuppositional question begging.
It requires intelligence. |
|
Assertion.
Chemists trying to copy DNA have to work intelligently while they are attempting to copy it as they cannot do it with the laws of chemical bonding alone –not by a long shot.
|
|
What do you mean 'copy' DNA? Please use field and level appropriate terms corectly and do not chastise me for interpreting what you write as coming form someone who claims that they have a background in this.
Tell me you’re too stupid to understand that.
|
|
I am too smart to be hoodwinked by the unsupported question begging, speacial pleading, and argument via analogy employed by charlatans and hucksters.
I see you keep missing this, les:
Quote from Lester10 at 11:19 PM on May 22, 2010 :
| ReMine wrote a book in 1993 or 1997, can't remember which. He claims that since nobody has criticized it "in ink" that his claims stand….. When it is pointed out to him that he wrote a book and that nobody really cares what he wrote |
|
Oh no, this is not at all like Remime. There are a lot of critics (most of whom have clearly not read the book and thus are unqualified to comment meaningfully) but the critics nitpick on the edges and don’t criticize the scientific claims. |
|
So you believe - let me guess, you've been reading Meyer's "response to critics" website wherein I am sure he claims, over and over, that no critics are addressing his 'scientific claims'. Just like how Behe 'responds' to critics by claiming the same thing all the while simply ignoring the demolition of his claims.
I've seen Meyer's whine-fest, and it is standard right-wing YEC fare.
That’s because they can’t … without looking stupid.
|
|
Like you do when you argue against evolution with your pathetically foolish parrotted and plagairized claims from Werner and Pye and Sarfati?
If you are so impressed with Meyer's latest repackaged old claims, how about YOU present one or two that you are actually able to discuss here and let us have at it?
Too scared that you'll be embarrassed again?
Derwood
I've linked to one actual biologist that is taking the time to review it chapter by chapter and the best you can do is call him names. |
|
I will give your critic credit, Derwood, he’s one of very few that have read some of the book. However his critique is mainly personal and his exposes of typos seems to miss the point of the scientific argument.
|
|
It would appear that you have not actually bothered to read his reviews. Typical. It seems that others were impressed enough to invite him to a panel discussion with Meyer. It was a rigged discussion, sponsored by Biola, of course, but Meyer actually conceded that some of his claims were not what he and his followers made them out to be...
I think the problem is that he can’t answer the science so he has to search desperately for things like ‘virus’ written instead of ‘bacteria’ once on one page incorrectly. It is a thoroughly inadequate response. |
|
I see you are intent to ignore why he mentioned that:
***
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).
***
You have also ignored documentation of Meyer's hyperbole and embellishment, such as:
***
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.
***
When I popsted that before, you merely dismissed it all, accusing Mattson of being the one that was embellishing, despite the fact that he provided sources that would corroborate his account, including YEC Thaxton's own.
But a dutiful YEC Meyer worshipper like you must proptect your hero at any and all costs.
Strained illogical claim ala Meyer:
Baseball bats are made of wood by humans. Humans are intelligent. Wood is therefore evidence of intelligence.
Brilliant! |
|
That’s like saying that the material component of DNA is evidence for intelligence showing that you missed the point.
Don’t worry, you’re not alone.
|
|
What does that even mean? I am not the one claiming DNA is intelligently designed...
The point is not that the material DNA must have been designed but that the DNA code superimposed on the material structure appears to have been intelligently designed.
|
|
But that is question begging. Why can't you tell? How does it 'appear' that way - because you are predisposed to think it is? Because you people actually think analogies are evidence?
Shame you decided to ignore so much of what I wrote. No worries - I will simply re-post it as often as needed to let any interested reader see what kind of 'christian' you are:
Kimura demonstrated mathematically in 1961 that adaptive evolution generates new genetic information. You cannot have functional information without genetic information.
By definition, a statement is not an ad hominem if 2. it is not irrelevant |
|
So it is an ad hominem if it is irrelevant –in which case it is an ad hominem after all.
|
|
You have a way of simply omitting statements that demonstrate your shortcomings. Allow me:
By definition, a statement is not an ad hominem if: 1. the statement is not being used to as an argument 2. it is not irrelevant
When I described you as a plagiarist, it was not my [i]argument and it is true. You plagiarized Jon Sarfati - plagiarism is the act of presenting the work of others without attribution, i.e., as your own. I clearly demonstrated it in this thread (and elsewhere).
[/i]
Previously, I had written:
No, it is a 'case' via questionbegging, idiosyncratic and unorthodox application of information theory and genetics, argument via analogy, and special pleading.
Then again, you are nothing but an underinformed plagiarst who cannot seem to produce a single original argument or claim and cannot even discuss the issues YOU bring up. So it is no wonder that you so often, after shooting your wad with plagiarized gibberish and paraphrased nonsense, end up running off.
Note two things - you simply ignored my actual argument and went on to the second half of the statement, which was merely commentary and was NOT part of my argument. You lose times 2.
That you are a documented plagiarist is both relevant as to your trustworthiness and ability to produce your own arguments (if you coud make your own arguments, there should be little impetus to plagiarize); I was not using your plagiarism AS an argument.
So, no, it was not an ad hominem. Again, you people should actually try to learn what those big words mean BEFORE you use them.
| plagiarism is the act of presenting the work of others without attribution, i.e., as your own. I clearly demonstrated it in this thread (and elsewhere). |
|
What if I’ve changed it here and there and it can no longer be considered to be Jon Sarfati’s? |
|
What if?
pla·gia·rism
–noun
1.the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.
2.something used and represented in this manner.
I wouldn’t want to attribute something to him that he is not responsible for, would I now? |
|
I am astounded that a person claiming a doctorate does not understand what plagiarism is.
But let us compare - I will put what you 'wrote' and what Sarfati wrote next to each other for comparison
***
Lester:
•The creationist Robert Boyle (1627–1691) fathered modern chemistry and demolished the Aristotelian four-elements theory. He also funded lectures to defend Christianity and sponsored missionaries and Bible translation work.
Sarfati:
The creationist Robert Boyle (1627–1691) fathered modern chemistry and demolished the Aristotelian four-elements theory. He also funded lectures to defend Christianity and sponsored missionaries and Bible translation work.
SIMILARITY: 100%
***
Lester:
•Cell phones depend on electromagnetic radiation theory, which was pioneered by creationist James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879)
Sarfati:
Cell phones depend on electromagnetic radiation theory, which was pioneered by creationist James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879)
SIMILARITY: 100%
***
Lester:
•Computing machines were invented by Charles Babbage (1791–1871), who was not a biblical creationist but was a creationist in the broad sense. He ‘believed that the study of the works of nature with scientific precision, was a necessary and indispensable preparation to the understanding and interpreting their testimony of the wisdom and goodness of their Divine Author.’
Sarfati:
Computing machines were invented by Charles Babbage (1791–1871), who was not a biblical creationist but was a creationist in the broad sense. He ‘believed that the study of the works of nature with scientific precision, was a necessary and indispensable preparation to the understanding and interpreting their testimony of the wisdom and goodness of their Divine Author.’
SIMILARITY: 100%
***
Lester:
•The creationist brothers Orville (1871–1948) and Wilbur Wright (1867–1912) invented the airplane after studying God’s design of birds.
Sarfati:
The creationist brothers Orville (1871–1948) and Wilbur Wright (1867–1912) invented the airplane after studying God’s design of birds.
SIMILARITY: 100%
***
Lester:
•The theory of planetary orbits was invented by Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), famous for claiming that his discoveries were ‘thinking God’s thoughts after him’.
Sarfati:
The theory of planetary orbits was invented by Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), famous for claiming that his discoveries were ‘thinking God’s thoughts after him’.
SIMILARITY: 100%
***
Lester:
The theory of gravity and the laws of motion, essential for the moon landings, was discovered by the creationist Isaac Newton (1642/3–1727).
Sarfati:
The theory of gravity and the laws of motion, essential for the moon landings, was discovered by the creationist Isaac Newton (1642/3–1727).
SIMILARITY: 100%
***
Lester:
•The moon landing program was headed by Wernher von Braun (1912–1977), who believed in a designer and opposed evolution.
Sarfati:
The moon landing program was headed by Wernher von Braun (1912–1977), who believed in a designer and opposed evolution. And a biblical creationist, James Irwin (1930–1991), walked on the moon.
SIMILARITY: 100%
***
I’ll not bother to mention that NONE of the people mentioned were biologists by any stretch of the imagination, so Sarfati is engaging in a big bait and switch game.
But you imply that your copied sections are changed a bit from Sarfati’s original – where?
You snipped off a sentence from one of them. Do you really think that makes it your own work?
Who, exactly, do you think you are fooling? I sit on the university's Academic Integrity Committee - we routinely find students guilty of academic dishonesty and send them to the Honor Board (which typically expells them) for far less egregious acts of plagiarism/dishonesty than what you've been doing.
And YOU should know better, if you really are what you claim. The, I don't suppose mail order diploma mills really care much about such things...
| You people should learn what the things you accuse people of actually mean. |
|
So should you.
|
|
Ironic that you would employ projection at this point.
| Wood and Wise ARE YECs - they state clearly that there are YECs because of their pathological devotion to Scripture above all else, they simply admit that the evidence is not in their favor. |
|
Those are some of the stupidest people I ever heard of then. |
|
Right - Wise's Harvard doctorate - a REAL doctorate, in Paleontology, and he is just a stupid guy. Wood, who leads the Baraminology Study group, yup, just a stupid guy. Lester the TROOO creationist with his mail order fake degree - the plagiarist, the guy who relies entirely on erroneous arguments made by clueless/dishonest YECs in books - only HE knows whats what.
Your arrogant elitism knows no bounds, does it?
Two and two is not making four here. If you clearly see the evidence against your view point, you give it up. |
|
Not when you put God first. Isn't that what Faith is all about? It seems to me that theirs is stronger than yours.
The problem is that I can so clearly see the evidence against evolution and they say (according to you) that they can’t. |
|
If you can see this evidence so clearly, why do you have such a hard time articulating it?
I’m afraid they’re trying about as hard as you are to see beyond the naturalistic bias that saturates evolutionary science OR they haven’t been handed all the data and haven’t yet seen that the evidence supports YEC’s so much better than it does evolution. |
|
Right, they just don't understand the evidence for YEC....
‘My favourite evidence for creation!’ by Kurt Wise
Director of the Center for Origins Research/Associate Professor of Science (Bryan College)
Todd Wood
Your credentials are?
| So, I have to wonder why you even disucss the issue. You clearly are nto open to allowing even the possibility thet you or your handlers are even the slightest bit wrong about anything |
|
You describe your own problem perfectly. Call it projection. |
|
I do?
I am not the one who wrote:
"A creationist either believes in divine creation by God or else he isn’t a creationist. "
"You see, the Bible is the authority, men are the fallen ones who believe what they prefer and always have done. That’s why we have the Bible – to help us to stick to the truth when our pride and arrogance is getting in the way; to remind us that ‘a day’ is ‘a day’ when we are tempted to believe in evolution..."
You really want to claim that I am projecting?
| These explosions that last millions of years and do, in fact, leave precursors and such. |
|
No the ones where everything appears fully functional, completely original and with no sign of any precursors.
|
|
What does a partially functional structure look like?
Simply asserting over and over that
you have evidence and then not being able to produce any make syou look moronic and sad. |
|
What about the Cambrian explosion. |
|
What about it? why do you think there SHOULD be the evidence you demand?
Why don’t you ever answer my evidence?
|
|
What evidence? You mean the totally unrealistic, silly, naive demands for a complete unbroken chain of fossils of every single intermediate that ever lived, showing half-this and half-that, partially functional this and partically functional that?
That is not evidence, that is your scientific naievete shining brightly.
Present some actual evidence and i will discuss it, but claiming that there should be this and that - when what you think there should be is a caricature and why you think it should be available shows your shallow understanding of things lile geology and taphonomy - I will simply point out that your 'evidence' is not actually evidence and your questions and demands are premised on ignorance.
| I guess you forgot that I STARTED 2 threads on Meyer's propaganda, and you've bailed from both of them. |
|
Not true. I’ve been answering all the Meyer threads that are relevant including this one. |
|
It is true. I've been bumping them for weeks.
Isn’t this what we’re doing –discussing Meyer’s arguments while you drag Archaeopteryx in to deviate attention from the DNA argument?
|
|
What DNA argument? Remember I started a thread for you on that, also, and all you seemed able to do was parrot Werner's stupid claims about museum displays and whales?
All you are doing in this thread is parrotting your new hero's book and dismissing/ignoring anything presented that counters it.
You are apparently unable to actually discuss anything.
| I have discussed the "informaiton" issue plenty, but you seem capable only of plagiarizing, paraphrasing and parrotting your heroes and seem totally incapable of discussing anything on your own. |
|
So why are you trying to distract me with Archie on an information thread? |
|
To remind you of all the other topics that you bring up because you read about it in some YEC book, couldn't actually handle the material, and ran off, like you'll be doing in this thread soon.
I’ve been discussing it in my own words and you keep insisting that I’m not –what is your problem? |
|
'Your own words' appears to me to mean that you are paraphrasing Meyer's claim and ignoring anything we write in response only to defer to your hero's claims.
Changing the subject I suspect.
|
|
Trying to get you back onto subjects you bailed from - subjects YOU brought up!
| And to reiterate, I have discussed plenty re: informatiton and DNAs and all you an muster is plagiarized quotes, paraphrases from your hero, and shopworn analogies and assertions. |
|
You are so repetitive and transparent. |
|
Yes, I am transparent. I like it that way - I do not like to hide behined plagiarism and the skirts of my heroes.
| You will note that I am here. |
|
So am I.
Now show me your naturalistic way of generating functional information. |
|
Mutation and natural selection.
Show us your way of generating it supernaturalistically - oh, right, Yahweh did it.
-------
Lester:
"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..." |
| |
Posts: 1355 | Posted: 12:52 PM on June 1, 2010 | IP
|
|
Lester10
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Lester
Do you see that “The dog ran fast” conveys something purposeful as opposed to an arbitrary line up of letters of the alphabet like “dew kik coi kjhg”? |
|
Waterboy Looks to me like they carry similar amounts of information. |
|
Similar amounts of Shannon information, yes.
But ‘the dog ran fast’ has specified complex information –it means something, has a purpose, was put together with intelligent intent.
The other just has Shannon information.
Biological information has specified complexity behaving for all the world like the information of language and codes that (in all our earthly experience) only comes from intelligence.
| The other might be meaningful... but not in English. |
|
If it could be shown to be meaningful and purposeful then it would be specified complex information however the consonants running together in the last word makes it look pretty doubtful.It has Shannon information though.
| I do know that the English sentence did NOT come from God. |
|
But it did come from intelligence and the argument of SITC is NOT that DNA came from God but that DNA shows all the classic signs of having arisen from an intelligent source.
| Alas it only came from Lester... |
|
Who is, despite all prejudice to the contrary, an intelligent source.
| who actually IS bound by all the usual laws of nature so I can conclude that the English sentence had a natural 'original cause'. |
|
But only if Lester’s brain arose via natural causes - which begs the question.
120 trillion nerve connections in the average human brain all wired together from one end of the body to the other doesn’t sound like a chance event to me. Have you ever wired a house?
I wonder how difficult it would be to program the wiring of a human being and whether it would be easier for a person to work it out compared to just natural causes and chance?
-------
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: 1308 | Posted: 1:28 PM on June 1, 2010 | IP
|
|
derwood
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from Lester10 at 1:28 PM on June 1, 2010 :
120 trillion nerve connections in the average human brain all wired together from one end of the body to the other doesn’t sound like a chance event to me. Have you ever wired a house?
|
|
I've not wired a house, but I do understand that neuron and neurite growth is dictated in embryological development largely via concentration gradients and it is after the neuronal connection have been made that the brain 'learns' how to interpret stimuli/send impulses to its points of connection.
IOW, it is like putting all the wires in a house first, then figuring out where the loose ends should hook to the main breaker panel.
Sort of the opposite of how one wires a house, I suppose.
-------
Lester:
"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..." |
| |
Posts: 1355 | Posted: 3:22 PM on June 1, 2010 | IP
|
|
porkchop
|
| | Report Post
|
Regular
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from Lester10 at 09:04 AM on June 1, 2010 :
Derwood
In a language code, what is the 'meaning' if you see a sentence like this:
"The dog ran fast"
and then see anopther sentence like this:
"The dog ran ran fast"?
Does the second sentence have a different meaning form the first? Is the effect of the sentences any different? |
|
It still means the same if you can see past the error. There are correction mechanisms in DNA and I expect the extent of the fault’s effect depends on how bad the error was and where it happened.
Do you see that “The dog ran fast” conveys something purposeful as opposed to an arbitrary line up of letters of the alphabet like “dew kik coi kjhg”?
Can you see the difference or not?
| Lester Neither can DNA be demonstrated to come about via natural processes. |
|
Derwood So Yahweh really was floating about in space putting those purines and pyrimidines in the Murcheson meteor. |
|
DNA Derwood, not purines and pyramidines.
You purposefully come back with nonsense and then imagine that it is a comeback of note.Purines and pyramidines are like alphabet letters as opposed to Shakespeare.
Alphabet letters line up randomly. Shakespeare requires intelligence and organization.
Purines and pyramidines only rely on chemical laws of attraction for their formation.
DNA, on the other hand, has a purposeful line up of nucleotide bases based on no preferential bonding meaning that it is inexplicable how the coding for specific purposeful proteins came about. It requires intelligence.
Chemists trying to copy DNA have to work intelligently while they are attempting to copy it as they cannot do it with the laws of chemical bonding alone –not by a long shot.
Tell me you’re too stupid to understand that.
|
|
Lester, you've stated it simply and to the point, but no matter, these guys can't cede to this point because it would jeapordize the very tenets which they cling to, that everything living is natural no matter what. There is no possibility of ID, end of story. You can't prove the big bang theorey, but that does not stop them from believing it.
-------
Our knowledge on the process is increasing, and will increase. And yet we can't know for sure every small step on the way. -Wisp................. What? Are biologists lacking knowledge for mutation experiments to turn one type of animal into another? This is a small step? ?
|
| |
Posts: 298 | Posted: 4:59 PM on June 1, 2010 | IP
|
|
waterboy
|
| | Report Post
|
Regular
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Lester
Chemists trying to copy DNA have to work intelligently while they are attempting to copy it as they cannot do it with the laws of chemical bonding alone –not by a long shot.
Tell me you’re too stupid to understand that. |
|
The only sense I can make of this gobbledygook is that you think the Chemists are using magic but you are calling it intelligence. Which chemical laws do you think they are breaking?
Your argument here is equivalent to asserting that it is impossible to run 100m in less than 9.5sec because noone has ever done it. Noone with any common sense is going to believe that!
I might also point out that noone has ever seen God! ... although I must admit plenty of people have claimed to have seen God.
(Edited by waterboy 6/1/2010 at 6:45 PM).
-------
Charis kai Eirene |
| |
Posts: 209 | Posted: 6:32 PM on June 1, 2010 | IP
|
|
Lester10
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Lester
Chemists trying to copy DNA have to work intelligently while they are attempting to copy it as they cannot do it with the laws of chemical bonding alone –not by a long shot. |
|
Waterboy
The only sense I can make of this gobbledygook is that you think the Chemists are using magic but you are calling it intelligence |
|
It takes intelligence to line up nucleotide bases in order to code for specific proteins. Any base can be in any position on the DNA – so which intelligence sorted them in the correct order for function? Any order won’t do. Chemistry can’t do it –so how did it happen????
I’m really trying to make this as simple for you as possible, what is the problem?
| Your argument here is equivalent to asserting that it is impossible to run 100m in less than 9.5sec because noone has ever done it. Noone with any common sense is going to believe that! |
|
Let’s try that once more. Chemical law cannot line up bases to code for functional proteins – so how did it happen?
| I might also point out that noone has ever seen God! |
|
No-one has ever seen a mouse turn into a bat either but that doesn’t disturb you. Even if a mouse could turn into a bat it would take some intelligent rearrangement not random chance. Why would a mouse decide to fly anyway?
Why aren’t today’s mice interested? Why don’t we see them at least trying?
| ... although I must admit plenty of people have claimed to have seen God. |
|
Which is more than I can say for the mice that took the initiative with flying and invented sonar by accident. Nobody’s even claimed to have seen anything like that happening in the fossil record, but they still believe it must have happened.
-------
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: 1308 | Posted: 09:33 AM on June 2, 2010 | IP
|
|
Lester10
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Do you believe that small mammals mutated into bats by accident, Wisp?
-------
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: 1308 | Posted: 11:16 AM on June 2, 2010 | IP
|
|
derwood
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from Lester10 at 11:20 AM on June 2, 2010 :
Like the short concise answer for once Wisp 
So tell me where did bats come from?
|
|
The original bat-kind.
All 1,000 species of them. In less than 4,500 years, and with nobody noticing and with no known mechanism excpet that we know it is all from degeneration due to the curse on the human genome.
-------
Lester:
"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..." |
| |
Posts: 1355 | Posted: 12:32 PM on June 2, 2010 | IP
|
|
Lester10
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
| Bats mutated from mammals, just like whales. |
|
Pity about that non-existant evidence. Sad that you only find fully bat-like bats from when they first appear with absolutely nothing showing us where they came from.
'Spose it doesn't matter really, we don't have any serious evidence for any of these proposed changes that are supposed to have happened so faith must just do it for you.
The whale story is just my best!
| Just like dogs mutated into Great Danes. |
|
Intelligence selected the features of Great Danes - inteligent selection. The mutations that go with those features were the unfortunate side effect of inbreeding - but then I'm sure you know exactly how it works.
At least you don't have to rely on faith there!
-------
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: 1308 | Posted: 3:11 PM on June 2, 2010 | IP
|
|
waterboy
|
| | Report Post
|
Regular
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from Lester10 at 7:33 PM on June 2, 2010 :
No-one has ever seen a mouse turn into a bat either but that doesn’t disturb you. Even if a mouse could turn into a bat it would take some intelligent rearrangement not random chance. Why would a mouse decide to fly anyway?
Why aren’t today’s mice interested? Why don’t we see them at least trying?
| ... although I must admit plenty of people have claimed to have seen God. |
|
Which is more than I can say for the mice that took the initiative with flying and invented sonar by accident. Nobody’s even claimed to have seen anything like that happening in the fossil record, but they still believe it must have happened.
|
|
I dont believe you missed the point. YOU consistently reject as IMPOSSIBLE everything you cant see.... except God.
You have, typically, responded with your dull and repetitious assertions, carefully sie-stepping the difficult questions.
WHAT CHEMICAL LAWS ARE THEY BREAKING?
At least you have given us some insight into what you might mean by macroevolution. If by macroevolution you mean mice magically turning into bats then you clearly do not understand evolution and you certainly dont understand what real scientists mean by macroevolution.
To avoid further confusion and establish some degree of common ground lets call what you mean by macroevolution... 'transformation'.
So you dont believe in 'transformation'. But then I dont know any evolutionary biologists supporting that hypothesis either so you are in good company.
Really! Is that all you got out of biology class.... rats turning into bats? Perhaps your teacher was overdue for an in-service. Or maybe you werent quite awake in that class. Having a daydream/nightmare perhaps?
-------
Charis kai Eirene |
| |
Posts: 209 | Posted: 5:53 PM on June 2, 2010 | IP
|
|
porkchop
|
| | Report Post
|
Regular
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from Lester10 at 08:23 AM on May 23, 2010 :
Wisp, you give every indication of not understanding Meyer's argument either.
You've said absolutely nothing of value about the information argument.
I thought you said you were interested in discussing information.
But clearly you don't have a clue what to discuss.
|
|
So Wisp, exactly where does the code come from, All I have heard from you is excuse and obfuscation and denials.
PS, if you look back at a previous post by you, you commended me for "understanding" that evolution is both natural selection and chance, so yes, I do understand it and you are wrong in that regard!
-------
Our knowledge on the process is increasing, and will increase. And yet we can't know for sure every small step on the way. -Wisp................. What? Are biologists lacking knowledge for mutation experiments to turn one type of animal into another? This is a small step? ?
|
| |
Posts: 298 | Posted: 8:46 PM on June 2, 2010 | IP
|
|
wisp
|
|   | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
| PS, if you look back at a previous post by you, you commended me for "understanding" that evolution is both natural selection and chance, so yes, I do understand it and you are wrong in that regard! |
|
!!!
You're absolutely right! I take that back. I forgot about that. You did understand something. Not enough, but my last comment was still hyperbolic and i accept your correction.
porkchopLester
Wisp, you give every indication of not understanding Meyer's argument either.
You've said absolutely nothing of value about the information argument.
I thought you said you were interested in discussing information.
But clearly you don't have a clue what to discuss. |
|
So Wisp, exactly where does the code come from, All I have heard from you is excuse and obfuscation and denials. |
|
First of all, notice that whatever i answer you can always say that.
So here's my answer AGAIN (i've answered this lots and lots of times already): The code comes from our minds.
Bonus: The information comes from the environment.
Bonus 2: What creationists describe when they say "information" doesn't exist.
Can you please consider this question answered this time, even if you don't like my answers?
-------
Lester| (...) 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. |
|
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: 2551 | Posted: 8:55 PM on June 2, 2010 | IP
|
|
Lester10
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Waterboy
I dont believe you missed the point. YOU consistently reject as IMPOSSIBLE everything you cant see.... except God. |
|
Good one Waterboy -and the only thing that you reject as impossible because you haven't seen him, is God. The rest you're quite ok with.
Like they say sceptics are sceptical about everything except their own chosen beliefs.
Absolutes don't exist and of that we are absolutely certain.
| LesterWhich is more than I can say for the mice that took the initiative with flying and invented sonar by accident. Nobody’s even claimed to have seen anything like that happening in the fossil record, but they still believe it must have happened. |
|
Waterboy
You have, typically, responded with your dull and repetitious assertions, carefully sie-stepping the difficult questions. |
|
Tell me about those difficult questions Waterboy and make it very plain just in case I am too stupid to understand. Do you understand that there are no signs of any pre-bat creature in the fossil record and that is only one of many miraculous appearances evolutionists need to explain.
I know that you want to believe that it evolved but you must understand that, in the absence of evidence, that is a faith-based decision you have made. The fossil record is full of stasis and sudden arrivals with no precursors -do you reserve the right to fill in those vast gaps with your imagination? Tell me why I should believe it too.
| Really! Is that all you got out of biology class.... rats turning into bats? |
|
Oh no! There were a lot more mythical miracles we were asked to swallow. We're just using this as an example of the magical transformations that supposedly happened -in those hundreds of millions of years that we don't even believe in.
I mean, I liked Alice in Wonderland and The Wizard of Oz as much as the next person but eventually you have to grow up.
You have chosen to believe in miracles and no miracle maker, design but no designer. At least I have a designer to deliver these miraculously co-ordinated miracles.
| The code comes from our minds. |
|
No Wisp, that is a cop out. I don't believe that you are that stupid. Like Porkchop points out and I concur, you are obfuscating. You don't call DNA a digital code just because you like the name. Either it is a code or it is not.
It is objectively a code - so where did it originate?
No code has ever originated by chance in all our experience on this earth. Randomness and undirected happenstance does not result in co-ordinated organization either. It never has. Why believe it in this instance?
By the way, I don't accept your answer. I don't think you've thought about this properly at all.
-------
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: 1308 | Posted: 09:45 AM on June 3, 2010 | IP
|
|
Apoapsis
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from Lester10 at 09:45 AM on June 3, 2010 :
No code has ever originated by chance in all our experience on this earth. Randomness and undirected happenstance does not result in co-ordinated organization either. |
|
Absolutely false, self-replicating RNA has been produced by allowing mixtures of RNA and precursor components to interact. When a good combination cropped up, it took over.
Originally published in Science Express on 8 January 2009
Science 27 February 2009:
Vol. 323. no. 5918, pp. 1229 - 1232
DOI: 10.1126/science.1167856
Reports
Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme
Tracey A. Lincoln and Gerald F. Joyce*
An RNA enzyme that catalyzes the RNA-templated joining of RNA was converted to a format whereby two enzymes catalyze each other's synthesis from a total of four oligonucleotide substrates. These cross-replicating RNA enzymes undergo self-sustained exponential amplification in the absence of proteins or other biological materials. Amplification occurs with a doubling time of about 1 hour and can be continued indefinitely. Populations of various cross-replicating enzymes were constructed and allowed to compete for a common pool of substrates, during which recombinant replicators arose and grew to dominate the population. These replicating RNA enzymes can serve as an experimental model of a genetic system. Many such model systems could be constructed, allowing different selective outcomes to be related to the underlying properties of the genetic system.
It never has. Why believe it in this instance?
|
|
It has, and it has been demonstrated to occur, despite the protestations of you and your sycophant.
-------
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: 1348 | Posted: 10:24 AM on June 3, 2010 | IP
|
|
Lester10
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Joyce and Lincoln started off with a fairly long RNA molecule. Nothing like RNA has ever appeared in Miller-Urey type experiments -so right there is already unjustified investigator interference.
Furthermore the paper didn't demonstrate replication but ligation, the joining of two small RNA pieces. The research already assumed not one, but three RNA pieces.
The information on the RNA was already present due to intelligent interference not via natural anything.
So once again, all we have is misleading hype.
-------
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: 1308 | Posted: 11:34 AM on June 3, 2010 | IP
|
|
Apoapsis
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
I'm sure you are very comforted by that thought.
-------
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: 1348 | Posted: 2:35 PM on June 3, 2010 | IP
|
|
derwood
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from porkchop at 4:59 PM on June 1, 2010 :
Lester, you've stated it simply and to the point, but no matter, these guys can't cede to this point because it would jeapordize the very tenets which they cling to, that everything living is natural no matter what. There is no possibility of ID, end of story. You can't prove the big bang theorey, but that does not stop them from believing it.
|
|
I see that you did not bother to read and/or could not understand my response to Lester.
-------
Lester:
"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..." |
| |
Posts: 1355 | Posted: 3:22 PM on June 3, 2010 | IP
|
|
derwood
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from Lester10 at 1:28 PM on June 1, 2010 :
Lester
Do you see that “The dog ran fast” conveys something purposeful as opposed to an arbitrary line up of letters of the alphabet like “dew kik coi kjhg”? |
|
Waterboy Looks to me like they carry similar amounts of information. |
|
Similar amounts of Shannon information, yes. |
|
The measurable, real kind of information, yes.
But ‘the dog ran fast’ has specified complex information –it means something, has a purpose, was put together with intelligent intent. |
|
Yes - a human concoced it.
The other just has Shannon information.
|
|
How are you sure that it has no CSI?
You do know, do you not, that Dembski admitted that he has no way of detecting CSI in coded symbols that he does not have the ability to decode, right?
Biological information has specified complexity behaving for all the world like the information of language and codes that (in all our earthly experience) only comes from intelligence. |
|
So you and your heroes keep asserting as if it means anything. Arguing via analogy is for those with no objective evidence. What you are logically claiming is that humans made DNA.
| The other might be meaningful... but not in English. |
|
If it could be shown to be meaningful and purposeful then it would be specified complex information |
|
Round and round the ID/YEC's arguments go...
the consonants running together in the last word makes it look pretty doubtful.It has Shannon information though.
|
|
Just like a DNA sequence.
| I do know that the English sentence did NOT come from God. |
|
But it did come from intelligence and the argument of SITC is NOT that DNA came from God but that DNA shows all the classic signs of having arisen from an intelligent source.
|
|
Via analogy to human activity.
| Alas it only came from Lester... |
|
Who is, despite all prejudice to the contrary, an intelligent source.
|
|
Not prejudice, post-judice.
A few key words: pneumonics; phenotype; archaeopteryx anatomy; seal and whale evolution; information; inferrence=guess (at least when others engage in it); plagiarism (multiple acts thereof); etc.
| who actually IS bound by all the usual laws of nature so I can conclude that the English sentence had a natural 'original cause'. |
|
But only if Lester’s brain arose via natural causes - which begs the question.
|
|
Actually, it follows from the evidence.
120 trillion nerve connections in the average human brain all wired together from one end of the body to the other doesn’t sound like a chance event to me. Have you ever wired a house? |
|
Who said it was a chance event except for scarecrows?
-------
Lester:
"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..." |
| |
Posts: 1355 | Posted: 3:32 PM on June 3, 2010 | IP
|
|
derwood
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Quote from Lester10 at 09:33 AM on June 2, 2010 :
It takes intelligence to line up nucleotide bases in order to code for specific proteins. |
|
Only if one sets out to encode a specific protein. Since evolution does not postulate that such a thing occurred, you are setting up a strawman sprinkled with some requisite question begging.
Any base can be in any position on the DNA – so which intelligence sorted them in the correct order for function? Any order won’t do. Chemistry can’t do it –so how did it happen????
|
|
Simple chemistry DOES arrange nucleotides. My goodness, stop living in your non-scientific box.
I’m really trying to make this as simple for you as possible, what is the problem?
|
|
We've been trying to make it simple for you, but you keep ignoring our replies, keep relying on book-selling charlatans whom you trust 100% even after their false claims are clearly demonstrated, etc.
You are doing everything you can to prop up the conclusion you drew when you converted to YECism.
| Your argument here is equivalent to asserting that it is impossible to run 100m in less than 9.5sec because noone has ever done it. Noone with any common sense is going to believe that! |
|
Let’s try that once more. Chemical law cannot line up bases to code for functional proteins – so how did it happen?
|
|
What 'chemical law' are you referring to, and why do you think caricatures/misrepresentations are a good way to present your argument?
| I might also point out that noone has ever seen God! |
|
No-one has ever seen a mouse turn into a bat either but that doesn’t disturb you. |
|
Because we can see other evidence. By the way - who saw the original bat kind magically sprout into 1,000 distinct species?
Even if a mouse could turn into a bat it would take some intelligent rearrangement not random chance. |
|
Unsupported assertion - remember, you are supposed to be presenting evidence for your claims, not just assuming that they are true.
Why would a mouse decide to fly anyway? |
|
Volition is irrelevant. Your silly strawmen are growing tiresome.
Why aren’t today’s mice interested? Why don’t we see them at least trying?
|
|
See above.
Why doesn't god show up in burning bushes and present us with ethereal-carved tablets of his words? Why doesn't god create new kinds left and right?
| ... although I must admit plenty of people have claimed to have seen God. |
|
Which is more than I can say for the mice that took the initiative with flying and invented sonar by accident. |
|
Your absurdities grow more ridiculous all the time.
Quote from Lester10 at 09:04 AM on June 1, 2010 :
Derwood
In a language code, what is the 'meaning' if you see a sentence like this:
"The dog ran fast"
and then see anopther sentence like this:
"The dog ran ran fast"?
Does the second sentence have a different meaning form the first? Is the effect of the sentences any different? |
|
It still means the same if you can see past the error. |
|
Why do you say it is an error?
There are correction mechanisms in DNA and I expect the extent of the fault’s effect depends on how bad the error was and where it happened.
|
|
Non-sequitur.
I did not ask about 'errors' and correctin, I asked about the meaning.
You have again demonstrated the limits of the language analogies employed in anti-darwinism.
Sure, we can look at a sentence with a word repeated, or an entire sentence repeated, and conclude that it is the reult of an 'error' and that we can deduce the 'original meaning' by overlooking the error.
But can 'we' do that with coding DNA sequence? And if not, does that change the meaning of the gene (in this case, including regulatory sequence)?
Do you see that “The dog ran fast” conveys something purposeful as opposed to an arbitrary line up of letters of the alphabet like “dew kik coi kjhg”? |
|
I do not know that the letters you presented ARE arbitrary. Perhaps they are a code that I do not understand. Were you to pickup the printout of an Enigma 'spy' machine, doubtless, you would see nothing but a string of arbitrary alphanumerics. But if you understood the code, you would see a specific message.
Can you see the difference or not?
|
|
Yes, I can see the difference between language analogies and actual genetics. Can you?
| Lester Neither can DNA be demonstrated to come about via natural processes. |
|
Derwood So Yahweh really was floating about in space putting those purines and pyrimidines in the Murcheson meteor. |
|
DNA Derwood, not purines and pyramidines. |
|
Don't you know what purines and pyrimidines are?
Purines and triazines in the Murchison meteorite
Abstract
Two samples of the Murchison C2 chondrite were examined for organic nitrogen compounds, using mass spectrometry as well as paper and thin-layer chromatography. Under mild extraction conditions (water or formic acid) only aliphatic amines and C2-C6 alkylpyridines were seen; the latter may be contaminants. Under drastic extraction conditions (hot, 3–6 M HCl or CF3COOH), a variety of basic nitrogen compounds appeared, in the following amounts (ppm): adenine (15), guanine (5), melamine (20), cyanuric acid (20–30), guanylurea (30–45), urea (25), etc. Apparently these compounds are present mainly in macromolecular material, and are released only upon acid hydrolysis.
You purposefully come back with nonsense and then imagine that it is a comeback of note.Purines and pyramidines are like alphabet letters as opposed to Shakespeare.
Alphabet letters line up randomly. Shakespeare requires intelligence and organization.
|
|
I think you think DNA means the extant sequence of nucleotides, is that correct?
DNA is NOT the genome, DNA is a polynucloeotide.
Thus, since I know what DNA is, when you make the question begging claim that DNA needs a mind, to me, that means you are referring to the organic compound itself. If you mean something else, you should write something else, but do not blame me for responding to what you actually wrote.
Purines and pyramidines only rely on chemical laws of attraction for their formation.
DNA, on the other hand, has a purposeful line up of nucleotide bases based on no preferential bonding meaning that it is inexplicable how the coding for specific purposeful proteins came about. |
|
DNA is deoxyribonucleic acid, an organic compound.
The rest of your statement is just presuppositional question begging.
It requires intelligence. |
|
Assertion.
Chemists trying to copy DNA have to work intelligently while they are attempting to copy it as they cannot do it with the laws of chemical bonding alone –not by a long shot.
|
|
What do you mean 'copy' DNA? Please use field and level appropriate terms corectly and do not chastise me for interpreting what you write as coming form someone who claims that they have a background in this.
Tell me you’re too stupid to understand that.
|
|
I am too smart to be hoodwinked by the unsupported question begging, speacial pleading, and argument via analogy employed by charlatans and hucksters.
I see you keep missing this, les:
Quote from Lester10 at 11:19 PM on May 22, 2010 :
| ReMine wrote a book in 1993 or 1997, can't remember which. He claims that since nobody has criticized it "in ink" that his claims stand….. When it is pointed out to him that he wrote a book and that nobody really cares what he wrote |
|
Oh no, this is not at all like Remime. There are a lot of critics (most of whom have clearly not read the book and thus are unqualified to comment meaningfully) but the critics nitpick on the edges and don’t criticize the scientific claims. |
|
So you believe - let me guess, you've been reading Meyer's "response to critics" website wherein I am sure he claims, over and over, that no critics are addressing his 'scientific claims'. Just like how Behe 'responds' to critics by claiming the same thing all the while simply ignoring the demolition of his claims.
I've seen Meyer's whine-fest, and it is standard right-wing YEC fare.
That’s because they can’t … without looking stupid.
|
|
Like you do when you argue against evolution with your pathetically foolish parrotted and plagairized claims from Werner and Pye and Sarfati?
If you are so impressed with Meyer's latest repackaged old claims, how about YOU present one or two that you are actually able to discuss here and let us have at it?
Too scared that you'll be embarrassed again?
Derwood
I've linked to one actual biologist that is taking the time to review it chapter by chapter and the best you can do is call him names. |
|
I will give your critic credit, Derwood, he’s one of very few that have read some of the book. However his critique is mainly personal and his exposes of typos seems to miss the point of the scientific argument.
|
|
It would appear that you have not actually bothered to read his reviews. Typical. It seems that others were impressed enough to invite him to a panel discussion with Meyer. It was a rigged discussion, sponsored by Biola, of course, but Meyer actually conceded that some of his claims were not what he and his followers made them out to be...
I think the problem is that he can’t answer the science so he has to search desperately for things like ‘virus’ written instead of ‘bacteria’ once on one page incorrectly. It is a thoroughly inadequate response. |
|
I see you are intent to ignore why he mentioned that:
***
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).
***
You have also ignored documentation of Meyer's hyperbole and embellishment, such as:
***
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.
***
When I popsted that before, you merely dismissed it all, accusing Mattson of being the one that was embellishing, despite the fact that he provided sources that would corroborate his account, including YEC Thaxton's own.
But a dutiful YEC Meyer worshipper like you must proptect your hero at any and all costs.
Strained illogical claim ala Meyer:
Baseball bats are made of wood by humans. Humans are intelligent. Wood is therefore evidence of intelligence.
Brilliant! |
|
That’s like saying that the material component of DNA is evidence for intelligence showing that you missed the point.
Don’t worry, you’re not alone.
|
|
What does that even mean? I am not the one claiming DNA is intelligently designed...
The point is not that the material DNA must have been designed but that the DNA code superimposed on the material structure appears to have been intelligently designed.
|
|
But that is question begging. Why can't you tell? How does it 'appear' that way - because you are predisposed to think it is? Because you people actually think analogies are evidence?
Shame you decided to ignore so much of what I wrote. No worries - I will simply re-post it as often as needed to let any interested reader see what kind of 'christian' you are:
Kimura demonstrated mathematically in 1961 that adaptive evolution generates new genetic information. You cannot have functional information without genetic information.
By definition, a statement is not an ad hominem if 2. it is not irrelevant |
|
So it is an ad hominem if it is irrelevant –in which case it is an ad hominem after all.
|
|
You have a way of simply omitting statements that demonstrate your shortcomings. Allow me:
By definition, a statement is not an ad hominem if: 1. the statement is not being used to as an argument 2. it is not irrelevant
When I described you as a plagiarist, it was not my [i]argument and it is true. You plagiarized Jon Sarfati - plagiarism is the act of presenting the work of others without attribution, i.e., as your own. I clearly demonstrated it in this thread (and elsewhere).
[/i]
Previously, I had written:
No, it is a 'case' via questionbegging, idiosyncratic and unorthodox application of information theory and genetics, argument via analogy, and special pleading.
Then again, you are nothing but an underinformed plagiarst who cannot seem to produce a single original argument or claim and cannot even discuss the issues YOU bring up. So it is no wonder that you so often, after shooting your wad with plagiarized gibberish and paraphrased nonsense, end up running off.
Note two things - you simply ignored my actual argument and went on to the second half of the statement, which was merely commentary and was NOT part of my argument. You lose times 2.
That you are a documented plagiarist is both relevant as to your trustworthiness and ability to produce your own arguments (if you coud make your own arguments, there should be little impetus to plagiarize); I was not using your plagiarism AS an argument.
So, no, it was not an ad hominem. Again, you people should actually try to learn what those big words mean BEFORE you use them.
| plagiarism is the act of presenting the work of others without attribution, i.e., as your own. I clearly demonstrated it in this thread (and elsewhere). |
|
What if I’ve changed it here and there and it can no longer be considered to be Jon Sarfati’s? |
|
What if?
pla·gia·rism
–noun
1.the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.
2.something used and represented in this manner.
I wouldn’t want to attribute something to him that he is not responsible for, would I now? |
|
I am astounded that a person claiming a doctorate does not understand what plagiarism is.
But let us compare - I will put what you 'wrote' and what Sarfati wrote next to each other for comparison
***
Lester:
•The creationist Robert Boyle (1627–1691) fathered modern chemistry and demolished the Aristotelian four-elements theory. He also funded lectures to defend Christianity and sponsored missionaries and Bible translation work.
Sarfati:
The creationist Robert Boyle (1627–1691) fathered modern chemistry and demolished the Aristotelian four-elements theory. He also funded lectures to defend Christianity and sponsored missionaries and Bible translation work.
SIMILARITY: 100%
***
Lester:
•Cell phones depend on electromagnetic radiation theory, which was pioneered by creationist James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879)
Sarfati:
Cell phones depend on electromagnetic radiation theory, which was pioneered by creationist James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879)
SIMILARITY: 100%
***
Lester:
•Computing machines were invented by Charles Babbage (1791–1871), who was not a biblical creationist but was a creationist in the broad sense. He ‘believed that the study of the works of nature with scientific precision, was a necessary and indispensable preparation to the understanding and interpreting their testimony of the wisdom and goodness of their Divine Author.’
Sarfati:
Computing machines were invented by Charles Babbage (1791–1871), who was not a biblical creationist but was a creationist in the broad sense. He ‘believed that the study of the works of nature with scientific precision, was a necessary and indispensable preparation to the understanding and interpreting their testimony of the wisdom and goodness of their Divine Author.’
SIMILARITY: 100%
***
Lester:
•The creationist brothers Orville (1871–1948) and Wilbur Wright (1867–1912) invented the airplane after studying God’s design of birds.
Sarfati:
The creationist brothers Orville (1871–1948) and Wilbur Wright (1867–1912) invented the airplane after studying God’s design of birds.
SIMILARITY: 100%
***
Lester:
•The theory of planetary orbits was invented by Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), famous for claiming that his discoveries were ‘thinking God’s thoughts after him’.
Sarfati:
The theory of planetary orbits was invented by Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), famous for claiming that his discoveries were ‘thinking God’s thoughts after him’.
SIMILARITY: 100%
***
Lester:
The theory of gravity and the laws of motion, essential for the moon landings, was discovered by the creationist Isaac Newton (1642/3–1727).
Sarfati:
The theory of gravity and the laws of motion, essential for the moon landings, was discovered by the creationist Isaac Newton (1642/3–1727).
SIMILARITY: 100%
***
Lester:
•The moon landing program was headed by Wernher von Braun (1912–1977), who believed in a designer and opposed evolution.
Sarfati:
The moon landing program was headed by Wernher von Braun (1912–1977), who believed in a designer and opposed evolution. And a biblical creationist, James Irwin (1930–1991), walked on the moon.
SIMILARITY: 100%
***
I’ll not bother to mention that NONE of the people mentioned were biologists by any stretch of the imagination, so Sarfati is engaging in a big bait and switch game.
But you imply that your copied sections are changed a bit from Sarfati’s original – where?
You snipped off a sentence from one of them. Do you really think that makes it your own work?
Who, exactly, do you think you are fooling? I sit on the university's Academic Integrity Committee - we routinely find students guilty of academic dishonesty and send them to the Honor Board (which typically expells them) for far less egregious acts of plagiarism/dishonesty than what you've been doing.
And YOU should know better, if you really are what you claim. The, I don't suppose mail order diploma mills really care much about such things...
| You people should learn what the things you accuse people of actually mean. |
|
So should you.
|
|
Ironic that you would employ projection at this point.
| Wood and Wise ARE YECs - they state clearly that there are YECs because of their pathological devotion to Scripture above all else, they simply admit that the evidence is not in their favor. |
|
Those are some of the stupidest people I ever heard of then. |
|
Right - Wise's Harvard doctorate - a REAL doctorate, in Paleontology, and he is just a stupid guy. Wood, who leads the Baraminology Study group, yup, just a stupid guy. Lester the TROOO creationist with his mail order fake degree - the plagiarist, the guy who relies entirely on erroneous arguments made by clueless/dishonest YECs in books - only HE knows whats what.
Your arrogant elitism knows no bounds, does it?
Two and two is not making four here. If you clearly see the evidence against your view point, you give it up. |
|
Not when you put God first. Isn't that what Faith is all about? It seems to me that theirs is stronger than yours.
The problem is that I can so clearly see the evidence against evolution and they say (according to you) that they can’t. |
|
If you can see this evidence so clearly, why do you have such a hard time articulating it?
I’m afraid they’re trying about as hard as you are to see beyond the naturalistic bias that saturates evolutionary science OR they haven’t been handed all the data and haven’t yet seen that the evidence supports YEC’s so much better than it does evolution. |
|
Right, they just don't understand the evidence for YEC....
‘My favourite evidence for creation!’ by Kurt Wise
Director of the Center for Origins Research/Associate Professor of Science (Bryan College)
Todd Wood
Your credentials are?
| So, I have to wonder why you even disucss the issue. You clearly are nto open to allowing even the possibility thet you or your handlers are even the slightest bit wrong about anything |
|
You describe your own problem perfectly. Call it projection. |
|
I do?
I am not the one who wrote:
"A creationist either believes in divine creation by God or else he isn’t a creationist. "
"You see, the Bible is the authority, men are the fallen ones who believe what they prefer and always have done. That’s why we have the Bible – to help us to stick to the truth when our pride and arrogance is getting in the way; to remind us that ‘a day’ is ‘a day’ when we are tempted to believe in evolution..."
You really want to claim that I am projecting?
| These explosions that last millions of years and do, in fact, leave precursors and such. |
|
No the ones where everything appears fully functional, completely original and with no sign of any precursors.
|
|
What does a partially functional structure look like?
Simply asserting over and over that
you have evidence and then not being able to produce any make syou look moronic and sad. |
|
What about the Cambrian explosion. |
|
What about it? why do you think there SHOULD be the evidence you demand?
Why don’t you ever answer my evidence?
|
|
What evidence? You mean the totally unrealistic, silly, naive demands for a complete unbroken chain of fossils of every single intermediate that ever lived, showing half-this and half-that, partially functional this and partically functional that?
That is not evidence, that is your scientific naievete shining brightly.
Present some actual evidence and i will discuss it, but claiming that there should be this and that - when what you think there should be is a caricature and why you think it should be available shows your shallow understanding of things lile geology and taphonomy - I will simply point out that your 'evidence' is not actually evidence and your questions and demands are premised on ignorance.
| I guess you forgot that I STARTED 2 threads on Meyer's propaganda, and you've bailed from both of them. |
|
Not true. I’ve been answering all the Meyer threads that are relevant including this one. |
|
It is true. I've been bumping them for weeks.
Isn’t this what we’re doing –discussing Meyer’s arguments while you drag Archaeopteryx in to deviate attention from the DNA argument?
|
|
What DNA argument? Remember I started a thread for you on that, also, and all you seemed able to do was parrot Werner's stupid claims about museum displays and whales?
All you are doing in this thread is parrotting your new hero's book and dismissing/ignoring anything presented that counters it.
You are apparently unable to actually discuss anything.
| I have discussed the "informaiton" issue plenty, but you seem capable only of plagiarizing, paraphrasing and parrotting your heroes and seem totally incapable of discussing anything on your own. |
|
So why are you trying to distract me with Archie on an information thread? |
|
To remind you of all the other topics that you bring up because you read about it in some YEC book, couldn't actually handle the material, and ran off, like you'll be doing in this thread soon.
I’ve been discussing it in my own words and you keep insisting that I’m not –what is your problem? |
|
'Your own words' appears to me to mean that you are paraphrasing Meyer's claim and ignoring anything we write in response only to defer to your hero's claims.
Changing the subject I suspect.
|
|
Trying to get you back onto subjects you bailed from - subjects YOU brought up!
| And to reiterate, I have discussed plenty re: informatiton and DNAs and all you an muster is plagiarized quotes, paraphrases from your hero, and shopworn analogies and assertions. |
|
You are so repetitive and transparent. |
|
Yes, I am transparent. I like it that way - I do not like to hide behined plagiarism and the skirts of my heroes.
| You will note that I am here. |
|
So am I.
Now show me your naturalistic way of generating functional information. |
|
Mutation and natural selection.
Show us your way of generating it supernaturalistically - oh, right, Yahweh did it.
-------
Lester:
"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..." |
| |
Posts: 1355 | Posted: 3:43 PM on June 3, 2010 | IP
|
|
Lester10
|
| | Report Post
|
Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a
Rate this post:
|
Lester
The information on the RNA was already present due to intelligent interference not via natural anything. |
|
Apoapsis
I'm sure you are very comforted by that thought. |
|
I’m always comforted whenever I demonstrate that information only comes from intelligence and that your belief that information arises naturally is a faith-based self deception.
Your religion is empty, the emperor has no clothes.
-------
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: 1308 | Posted: 02:07 AM on June 4, 2010 | IP
|
|
|
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]
|
|
|
Creationism vs Evolution Debates
