NationStates Jolt Archive

As I understand it, Hell is the one place where there are absolutely no Good Christians. Sounds fine to me. ;)

Hell is actually the absence of the holy spirit. This is quite different from what is taught in most churches and media today about what hell is. Then again most churches said the world was flat and that we were at the centre of the universe 600 years ago or so anyhow. I strongly suggest that if you really want to understand the bible then read it yourself in context as opposed to having someone tell you what it states since most people have not read it. Not stating this to TRY and convert you or anything, just it is a good historical manual in many respects...

You're going to hell. I hope you're happy.

Hell is where fun people go there. ;)

It is interesting that the comic uses bacteria as its example, since it is from bacteria that we derive one of the clearest cases to contradict the neo-Darwinian theory (NDT).

The bacterial flagellum is a structure that possesses what the microbiologist Behe calls "irreducible complexity". That is, it is a complex structure that loses its function if any one part is removed, barring any gradualistic formation.

The bacterial flagellum is a rotary structure powered by an electric motor. Yes, you read right, unlike any structure we see in multicellular life, many bacteria possess a true rotary system. What is more, this structure is composed of over fifty highly specific proteins, which must be precise in both chemical structure and folding pattern. Remove or substantially alter any one of these proteins, and you lose all function. Thus, no "half-flagellum" is possible. Random, gradualistic evolution cannot explain it.

Natural selection will never favor a mutation that requires an organism to invest in a useless structure for the promise that, one day, it will have function. It must have a positive, selectable function at each step along the path. No one has ever been able to offer a detailed, mutation-by-mutation scenario that can explain the bacterial flagellum.

Evolution is a theory. Any theory which is worth the name can be disproved. If the bacterial flagellum could not have evolved, and yet exists in a living creature, does that not disprove the sweeping claims of NDT?

It is interesting that the comic uses bacteria as its example, since it is from bacteria that we derive one of the clearest cases to contradict the neo-Darwinian theory (NDT).

The bacterial flagellum is a structure that possesses what the microbiologist Behe calls "irreducible complexity". That is, it is a complex structure that loses its function if any one part is removed, barring any gradualistic formation.

unfortunately behe is, like always, wrong (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html).

we not only have possible evolutionary pathways already laid out in the literature, but flagella aren't even irreducible in the first place.

Hah! I have read some of these "explanations" and they always begin with some hypothetical precursor protein for which no homolog is even known to exist. Nor do they speak of what particular mutation events actually created the proteins.

There are two types of mutation event needed to build a flagellum. First is the creation of a redundant copy of a gene, and then point mutations are needed to change the amino acids produced. You can't just explain this path with a jargon-laden just-so story. You have to show how each step, small enough to be reasonably probable, can be favored by natural selection. All the papers I have read propose numerous intermediate and hypothetically useful structures, but do not address whether those structures, themselves, were irreducibly complex, nor do they examine whether they are truly suitable precursors for the flagellum.

In short, your writing and saying "nuh-uh" does not constitute an argument.

Without checking to see how far the thread has evolved (oops, sorry, been "intelligently derailed")...

W00T!!!

Everything is ordered because everything, at its fundamental level, follow certain laws of physics.

However the mere existence of those laws of physics does not prove a diety.
So where did the laws come from? If the universe began as randomness there should still be some randomness somewhere. All I'm asking for is one example of that randomness.

Hah! I have read some of these "explanations" and they always begin with some hypothetical precursor protein for which no homolog is even known to exist. Nor do they speak of what particular mutation events actually created the proteins.

There are two types of mutation event needed to build a flagellum. First is the creation of a redundant copy of a gene, and then point mutations are needed to change the amino acids produced. You can't just explain this path with a jargon-laden just-so story. You have to show how each step, small enough to be reasonably probable, can be favored by natural selection. All the papers I have read propose numerous intermediate and hypothetically useful structures, but do not address whether those structures, themselves, were irreducibly complex, nor do they examine whether they are truly suitable precursors for the flagellum.

In short, your writing and saying "nuh-uh" does not constitute an argument.

Seriously, every time I hear this is simply amazes me that they actually fool people with the irreducibly complex argument. In order to prove, evolution we do not have to figure out how every single trait anyone can find could have evolved. Science unlike religion is quite happy to admit where it is ignorant. We give explanations where we have them and don't bother to just slip in "well... cuz" as an explanation for the rest. We say, "we don't know," and wait to find more information.

The funny thing about evolution is that you expect a burden of proof not required of any other explanation... EVER. We don't have the burden of proving evolution right. You have the burden of proving it wrong. And "I don't understand" does not amount to disproving, not matter how often or how loudly you proclaim it.

Prove evolution is impossible. Prove it's even improbable. And if you do, you will be one of the most famous scientists of our lifetime. Unlike religion, science thoroughly enjoys being wrong. It's pretty much a focus of the work of a large percentage of scientists (experimental scientists, at least). The surest way to make a name for yourself in the science world is to prove another scientist wrong, or to even reasonably cast doubt. So far, not a single Creationist has done so with anything that a knowledgeable scientist wouldn't laugh at.

So where did the laws come from? If the universe began as randomness there should still be some randomness somewhere. All I'm asking for is one example of that randomness.

Who said the universe began in randomness? What widely-held theory is this?

And if we're going down where did the laws come from argument, then where did God come from? Some things we don't know. Passing I don't know on to deity is not an answer.

Hah! I have read some of these "explanations" and they always begin with some hypothetical precursor protein for which no homolog is even known to exist. Nor do they speak of what particular mutation events actually created the proteins.

There are two types of mutation event needed to build a flagellum. First is the creation of a redundant copy of a gene, and then point mutations are needed to change the amino acids produced. You can't just explain this path with a jargon-laden just-so story. You have to show how each step, small enough to be reasonably probable, can be favored by natural selection. All the papers I have read propose numerous intermediate and hypothetically useful structures, but do not address whether those structures, themselves, were irreducibly complex, nor do they examine whether they are truly suitable precursors for the flagellum.

In short, your writing and saying "nuh-uh" does not constitute an argument.


Ok, fine. You present a peer reviewed study from a scientific journal disputing it, as FS has done.

Prove evolution is impossible. Prove it's even improbable. And if you do, you will be one of the most famous scientists of our lifetime. Unlike religion, science thoroughly enjoys being wrong. It's pretty much a focus of the work of a large percentage of scientists (experimental scientists, at least). The surest way to make a name for yourself in the science world is to prove another scientist wrong, or to even reasonably cast doubt. So far, not a single Creationist has done so with anything that a knowledgeable scientist wouldn't laugh at.

Science likes being wrong. Scientists are human, and don't. When the majority of the scientific community believes something, then they don't like people who challenge that belief. The whole church vs science caricature of the late Middle Ages got started because, up until that point, guess what - the church (especially the monasteries) was the scientific community. And then Galileo and Copernicus and whoever else - most of them also Christian - came along and suggested the scientists' theories were all messed up. And the scientists didn't like that.

As far as evolution goes, it's still a theory at best: obviously, there's been no time to test the idea for reproduceability (normally one of the first tests). The evidence may look like it points to evolution being the most logical explanation of origins, but by the very nature of things, it can't be proved. The closest thing to proof we're liable to get is discovery that a species, or part of a species, has begun to evolve to something totally different - not just a different species, that happens all the time, but say a different genus at least.

Irreducibility is a fairly good argument, but as long as the evolutionist can say, "The parts don't necessarily have to have performed a useful function beforehand, as long as they didn't get in the way the trait would be passed down until it all came together," the ID argument won't get much of anywhere.

Personally, I find that it makes a ton more sense to suppose that some intelligent being designed the cosmos, even up to incorporating elements of adaptability, then to say it all just happened. I have issues with young-earth-ism because the evidence (esp. the astronomical stuff) seems to indicate a longer period than 10K-odd years; on the other hand, evolutionary theory, as far as I can tell, can in no way explain the origin of life from non-life, or self-aware/thinking life from just plain old alive life. Those both seem to involve more-than-material changes. Species difference, from all I can tell, could perfectly well have arisen by evolution, but something had to be made alive in the first place.

We don't need unending proofs to show that gravity is a law of nature, because we all see it, every day, and if it fails, there is inevitably a hidden and very logical reason behind it.

Evolution is a different thing entirely. It proposes to explain the origin of life in all its diversity. The fact that no one has EVER observed macroevolution in action does not stop "experimental scientists" from treating NDTas fact. And if no creation scientist has ever come up with anything that an evolutionist would not laugh at, it is because the methodological naturalistic metaphysics they operate under bars any mention of an intelligent designer from being considered.

Evolutionists have not even given a plausible explanation for how life began, much less how it diversified, nor how complex specified molecules formed in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The ideas your basing your claims on aren't flawed, but your conclusions don't follow. Pllease try harder. This is just sad.
I have asked for an observation. I have asked for criteria that show something was "man-made" (made with intelligence) vs. a natural happening.

In science a scientist come forward with a theory. Then shows how the theory fits with all that is observed. If anyone can come up with one exception to the theory the theory becomes null and void. If no one can come up with an exception to the theory it becomes over time accepted. This is what has happened with evolution. The theory and evidence were given and the challenge was to disprove it. ALL of the evidence indicates that evolution is how life got to the point where it is now.

Now I set up a criteria for intelligence and asked those on the thread to come up with different criteria if they found a flaw in mine. I asked those on the thread to look around and tell me the difference between the things around them that were "man-made" (made with intelligence) and the things that were of nature. I proposed the theory that when an archeologist looks at a wall s/he sees order at that level of abstraction. When an object of nature is observed there is far less organization of the minerals, at that level of abstraction. So Organization in science is an indication of intelligence. If you don't like that criteria give me another totally valid criteria.

Now simply take that criteria, or your criteria to a greater level of abstraction and what to we get----Total Order. Now if the theory is wrong all you have to do is find one exception. If I'm wrong that should be easy.

Science likes being wrong. Scientists are human, and don't. When the majority of the scientific community believes something, then they don't like people who challenge that belief. The whole church vs science caricature of the late Middle Ages got started because, up until that point, guess what - the church (especially the monasteries) was the scientific community. And then Galileo and Copernicus and whoever else - most of them also Christian - came along and suggested the scientists' theories were all messed up. And the scientists didn't like that.

As far as evolution goes, it's still a theory at best: obviously, there's been no time to test the idea for reproduceability (normally one of the first tests). The evidence may look like it points to evolution being the most logical explanation of origins, but by the very nature of things, it can't be proved. The closest thing to proof we're liable to get is discovery that a species, or part of a species, has begun to evolve to something totally different - not just a different species, that happens all the time, but say a different genus at least.

Irreducibility is a fairly good argument, but as long as the evolutionist can say, "The parts don't necessarily have to have performed a useful function beforehand, as long as they didn't get in the way the trait would be passed down until it all came together," the ID argument won't get much of anywhere.

Personally, I find that it makes a ton more sense to suppose that some intelligent being designed the cosmos, even up to incorporating elements of adaptability, then to say it all just happened. I have issues with young-earth-ism because the evidence (esp. the astronomical stuff) seems to indicate a longer period than 10K-odd years; on the other hand, evolutionary theory, as far as I can tell, can in no way explain the origin of life from non-life, or self-aware/thinking life from just plain old alive life. Those both seem to involve more-than-material changes. Species difference, from all I can tell, could perfectly well have arisen by evolution, but something had to be made alive in the first place.


Now look up the definition of a scientific theory.

Show me in the Theory of Evolution that there is no god.

"irreducibly complex" is a cop-out arguement that basically says "we don't know all the answers so god did it"

We don't need unending proofs to show that gravity is a law of nature, because we all see it, every day, and if it fails, there is inevitably a hidden and very logical reason behind it.

And since it has failed at various levels, the theory is being reconsidered.

Next.

Evolution is a different thing entirely. It proposes to explain the origin of life in all its diversity. The fact that no one has EVER observed macroevolution in action does not stop "experimental scientists" from treating NDTas fact. And if no creation scientist has ever come up with anything that an evolutionist would not laugh at, it is because the methodological naturalistic metaphysics they operate under bars any mention of an intelligent designer from being considered.

All the evidence points towards otherwise. To present a hypothesis, it has to have the ability to be disprovable. Are you trying to say an "intelligent designer" can be disproved?

"Creation Scientists" take an assumption and manipulate facts to fit it. That is not science. That is nonsense.

Evolutionists have not even given a plausible explanation for how life began, much less how it diversified, nor how complex specified molecules formed in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Now you're showing your ignorance again. Show me how it "violates" the 2nd law. Come on, give us a good laugh.

Hint: Read up on it first.

I have a question... how do they define species for prokaryotes? Since bacteria reproduce by multiplying, or dividing, however you think of it, in any case it's asexual so how can you distinguish species? Since the eukaryotic definition, at least, is that two members of the same species can produce fertile offspring.

All you are saying is, that no matter what definition I give for an indication of something crafted by intelligence, you could apply to the universe.

The REASON however that is, is because the universe, at its core, is not random, it obeys natural physical laws.

The presence of laws however does not indicate a higher intellect.
Where do the laws come from? Not from a universe that came into being by random action. Random action won't produce 100% without exception order.

Completely and utterly false. There is nothing random about nature. We decide if something is designed by looking at whether a designer, man, or nature is the most likely culprit based on past observations. If you can show me what past observations we can use to decide something was created by God, I'd be interested to see it. Same old creationist argument based on a misapplication of the idea of order.

A forest is natural, but it is not random. With the right information one could explain every single placement of every single plant and animal.


Thank you for supporting my arguement. At low levels of abstraction there is an observable difference between "man-made" and nature. But as we enter higher levels of abstraction we lose all randomness.

Now look up the definition of a scientific theory.

I know wiki is not the be all and end all, but their definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) turned up quickly and looks like about what I've heard before from almost every source: "In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation."

Hence my assertion that proof of the theory of evolution would be a part of a species evolving so that it fit a new genus.

Show me in the Theory of Evolution that there is no god.

Can't. I was just assuming that, like most other people, the people on this board were assuming evolution=materialistic evolution, i.e. since evolution explains everything God must not exist. An oversight, simplification, and inaccuracy on my part. Sorry.

"irreducibly complex" is a cop-out arguement that basically says "we don't know all the answers so god did it"

"Evolution" is a cop-out arguement that basically says, "We don't know all the answers so it must have just happened somehow." :rolleyes:

Seriously though, the argument from "irreducible complexity" says that "This thing is so insanely complicated that the odds are it was designed by the Flying Spaghetti Monster of Doom (or other being of miraculous power)." It's not "scientific" as in deductively reasoned out, it's a more inductive argument, and is really only the basis for further research to show that xyz attribute couldn't have arisen "naturally".

So no, it's not the "omg you evolutionists are so pwned" argument many make it out to be, but it is something worthy of consideration.

I know wiki is not the be all and end all, but their definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) turned up quickly and looks like about what I've heard before from almost every source: "In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation."

Hence my assertion that proof of the theory of evolution would be a part of a species evolving so that it fit a new genus.

Now since every theory fits that definition, a hypothesis supported by the prepoderance of evidence, which has been presented numerous times during this thread, including evolving into a new genus, it is more than "just a theory".



Can't. I was just assuming that, like most other people, the people on this board were assuming evolution=materialistic evolution, i.e. since evolution explains everything God must not exist. An oversight, simplification, and inaccuracy on my part. Sorry.

Fair enough.



"Evolution" is a cop-out arguement that basically says, "We don't know all the answers so it must have just happened somehow." :rolleyes:

Seriously though, the argument from "irreducible complexity" says that "This thing is so insanely complicated that the odds are it was designed by the Flying Spaghetti Monster of Doom (or other being of miraculous power)." It's not "scientific" as in deductively reasoned out, it's a more inductive argument, and is really only the basis for further research to show that xyz attribute couldn't have arisen "naturally".

And yet science continues to explore the possibilities while IC just tries to stop basing it on "god did it".

The "inductive arguements" have more support than anything presented by ID or IC ever has.

So no, it's not the "omg you evolutionists are so pwned" argument many make it out to be, but it is something worthy of consideration.

No, it's really not.

We don't know yet =/ god did it.

Science likes being wrong. Scientists are human, and don't.

Good thing scientists can't arbitrarily changes the rules of proof at a whim. We leave that to creationists.

When the majority of the scientific community believes something, then they don't like people who challenge that belief.

BS. Science has many times endured radical changes. Radical change is an exciting time in science. It leaves lots of room for new research and experimentation. It's a beautiful thing. I think you'll find very few scientists who disagree.

Most scientists have no vested interest in evolution so it's not like it's an offense to thme for someone to change things. I, for one, would love to see it.

The whole church vs science caricature of the late Middle Ages got started because, up until that point, guess what - the church (especially the monasteries) was the scientific community. And then Galileo and Copernicus and whoever else - most of them also Christian - came along and suggested the scientists' theories were all messed up. And the scientists didn't like that.

Yes, it was the scientific community. It was also the government of a sort. If you're trying to suggest that people in power don't like to have their power challenged... well, duh. However, in science, people aren't controlled using evolution so a change in evolutionary theory or even a complete discard of evolutionary theory would do nothing to the amount of power current scientists have.

However, you've just explained why Creationists have such an interest in lying. See, scientists do better by adjusting to current evidence. However, the Church is supposed to have access to the word of God. If it admits it's wrong then it has to admit it's fallible. Not so for science.

As far as evolution goes, it's still a theory at best: obviously, there's been no time to test the idea for reproduceability (normally one of the first tests). The evidence may look like it points to evolution being the most logical explanation of origins, but by the very nature of things, it can't be proved. The closest thing to proof we're liable to get is discovery that a species, or part of a species, has begun to evolve to something totally different - not just a different species, that happens all the time, but say a different genus at least.

It's a theory. Who claimed otherwise? It's a theory just like many other theories we hold to be reasonably true. Most theories don't get the level of challenge evolution does, but creationists feel threatened so...

Meanwhile, evolution has gotten challenged by a good portion of the scientific and religious communities and has still not been prove wrong. Yet, it is often claimed by the religious community that it hasn't been challenged. This is a blatant lie. It's been tested repeatedly. References to those tests have appeared throughout the thread. It's just sad. Creationists don't debunk evidence. They ignore it. It's laughable and deserves it.

Irreducibility is a fairly good argument, but as long as the evolutionist can say, "The parts don't necessarily have to have performed a useful function beforehand, as long as they didn't get in the way the trait would be passed down until it all came together," the ID argument won't get much of anywhere.

Ha. "Waaa, they made a theory that is so sound that our made-up reasons for why it's wrong don't actually challenge it. It's not fair." There's a reason why that challenge doesn't work. You know what it is? Because the theory is sound. We didn't throw out the theory of the atom because we weren't sure what the parts were.

Personally, I find that it makes a ton more sense to suppose that some intelligent being designed the cosmos, even up to incorporating elements of adaptability, then to say it all just happened. I have issues with young-earth-ism because the evidence (esp. the astronomical stuff) seems to indicate a longer period than 10K-odd years; on the other hand, evolutionary theory, as far as I can tell, can in no way explain the origin of life from non-life, or self-aware/thinking life from just plain old alive life. Those both seem to involve more-than-material changes. Species difference, from all I can tell, could perfectly well have arisen by evolution, but something had to be made alive in the first place.
Good for you. Your faith is not science. Keep crying that it's not, but it will do little other than make people laugh at you. Now, if you can come up with an actual scientific challenge that doesn't amount to "I don't know so God did it" then you'll be the most famous scientist of our generation. Good luck. Creationists have been failing at it for fifty years.

.


I'll give you one. Look and see if it could be made by a designer based on our knowledge of designers. In this case, no. We know of no designer that we have observed in the past that could be responsible for the universe. In that event, we generally look for a natural explanation until we find some evidence to the contrary.
By your criteria an archeologist can't find anything different because it might go against what we know about the ability of humans to create. By what you are saying the pyramids aren't man-made because of what we know the technology wasn't available to create them. But there they are--an organized pile of rocks. So we don't deny they are man-made, we look for a technique that could have been used by a designer that did something that denys what we know about the designer.

However, "based on our knowledge of designers" is what I've been saying. A designer be it Lucy or Bill Gates takes raw materials and organizes what is there into something useful. And to the observer more organized than could be done without intelligence.

I have asked for an observation. I have asked for criteria that show something was "man-made" (made with intelligence) vs. a natural happening.

I answered that as I've done to you before. You keep trotting out that argument and it's a complete and utter falsehood. Your suggestion of how we determine if something is man-made has NOTHING to do with how we actually do it.

Meanwhile, let's play an equal game to your bizarre challenge about randomness The way we determine if something is natural is that it exists in nature. Show me something that doesn't exist in all of the natural world. Show me. Come on. Do it. Come on. You can't? Good, I just proved God doesn't exist. Forget that I based my argument on fallacy, because we're not trying to be logical here.

In science a scientist come forward with a theory. Then shows how the theory fits with all that is observed. If anyone can come up with one exception to the theory the theory becomes null and void. If no one can come up with an exception to the theory it becomes over time accepted. This is what has happened with evolution. The theory and evidence were given and the challenge was to disprove it. ALL of the evidence indicates that evolution is how life got to the point where it is now.

Now I set up a criteria for intelligence and asked those on the thread to come up with different criteria if they found a flaw in mine. I asked those on the thread to look around and tell me the difference between the things around them that were "man-made" (made with intelligence) and the things that were of nature. I proposed the theory that when an archeologist looks at a wall s/he sees order at that level of abstraction. When an object of nature is observed there is far less organization of the minerals, at that level of abstraction. So Organization in science is an indication of intelligence. If you don't like that criteria give me another totally valid criteria.

Organization is not an indication of intelligence. Particular kinds of patterns are. Many patterns do not show any intelligence at all. You made something up and then claimed it's a law and then said it proves God exists. Are we just making things up or are we dealing in the real world? In the real world, organization is not proof of intelligence even if you repeat a whole lot.

Now simply take that criteria, or your criteria to a greater level of abstraction and what to we get----Total Order. Now if the theory is wrong all you have to do is find one exception. If I'm wrong that should be easy.

So do you usually ignore all the arguments you don't like or is this just reserved for those times when the arguments challenge your poorly formed beliefs.

Yes, it is. But evolution suggests that eventually a mutation would occur that enabled you to leap a few stairs, and over many thousands of years this would become necessary for survival and only the creatures born with this mutation would be able to reproduce (as normal "walkers" become passe) and over time, you would eventually be able to leap the building in one bound. A series of improbable adaptations that result in the eventual transformation into a new form of life that is no longer human because of the necessary physiological developments required to lep the building as a result of a series of genetic mutations.


Oh my holy zombie jesus, your logic is horribly flawed.

"Evolution" is a cop-out arguement that basically says, "We don't know all the answers so it must have just happened somehow." :rolleyes:

Seriously though, the argument from "irreducible complexity" says that "This thing is so insanely complicated that the odds are it was designed by the Flying Spaghetti Monster of Doom (or other being of miraculous power)." It's not "scientific" as in deductively reasoned out, it's a more inductive argument, and is really only the basis for further research to show that xyz attribute couldn't have arisen "naturally".

So no, it's not the "omg you evolutionists are so pwned" argument many make it out to be, but it is something worthy of consideration.Tell me which one of the following statements seems more reasonable:
A: "Koon Proxy isn't a rock, so Koon Proxy is probably something else."
B: "Koon Proxy isn't a rock, so it stands to reason he can only be a fern."

One of the fundamental problems with the IDisms, is that they make a quite staggeringly huge, and utterly unprovable conclusion, based on a lack of knowledge.

We have no evidence what-so-ever that a designer exists. We have no evidence what-so-ever, that anything was designed. The sum total of our knowledge about this, is nothing.

To use another analogy, the IDists are akin to small children who've yet to learn about addition, and so when presented with 2+2, colcludes that God must magically make the result 4. After all, what else could possibly explain this incredible transformation?

It's utter nonsense. Pure and simple blithering foolishness. This doesn't mean that there can't be a designer, but there's not a reason in the world, to assume that there is one - other than possibly to feel good about ourselves, 'cuz we's speziul.

However, you've just explained why Creationists have such an interest in lying. See, scientists do better by adjusting to current evidence. However, the Church is supposed to have access to the word of God. If it admits it's wrong then it has to admit it's fallible. Not so for science.

Like in the late Middle Ages I referenced before, I think the church has largely confused "evolution" and "God doesn't exist" (EDIT: Only, in the LMA, it was "we go round the sun" and "God doesn't exist"). So naturally they feel threatened. Presumably, history will repeat itself and in another 150 years or so a consensus will be reached, as 200-300 years seems to be about the time a radical new theory takes to settle itself down and deal with all troublemakers, or else be disproved by new evidence.

Good for you. Your faith is not science. Keep crying that it's not, but it will do little other than make people laugh at you. Now, if you can come up with an actual scientific challenge that doesn't amount to "I don't know so God did it" then you'll be the most famous scientist of our generation. Good luck. Creationists have been failing at it for fifty years.

Who said I was challenging it? I was pointing out some logical inconsistencies in a previously-made argument, and attempting to explain the POV, imho a consistent one, from which I look at evolution/theories of origins. Yes, Christianity is a faith. I'm not crying about it, and what I believe actually has nothing to do with the argument I made.

As I stated before, my biggest problem with a strictly material evolution is that "evolutionary theory, as far as I can tell, can in no way explain the origin of life from non-life, or self-aware/thinking life from just plain old alive life", which charge you don't deal with at all.

By your criteria an archeologist can't find anything different because it might go against what we know about the ability of humans to create.

Wrong. It's simply the initial criteria. Then we look for potential explanations. And we keep looking till we find one. We don't go, "well, I guess I don't know how this happened so it's a result of intelligence."

By what you are saying the pyramids aren't man-made because of what we know the technology wasn't available to create them. But there they are--an organized pile of rocks. So we don't deny they are man-made, we look for a technique that could have been used by a designer that did something that denys what we know about the designer.

Not what I said at all. Good thing your faith in God doesn't compell you to be honest.

We know that pyramids were possible to make by humans even if they seem out of place for the time and we know of no natural formations of that kind. The pyramids exhibit a particular kind of pattern that is unusual in nature. You cannot make a similar argument about the universe because you have no basis for comparison. But you seem to have no problem pretending like you know what would happen to the universe absent a designer even though you don't actually know the universe has one.

However, "based on our knowledge of designers" is what I've been saying. A designer be it Lucy or Bill Gates takes raw materials and organizes what is there into something useful. And to the observer more organized than could be done without intelligence.
So does nature. If I explain design in an simple enough way I can apply anything. See you have to show that the organization of the raw materials defies natural law and so far there is no indication it did. Good luck. I look forward to your paper in this area.

I'm sorry, I don't want to be dishonest. You've shown no innovation. You've trotted thoroughly debunked arguments that I expect you'll use in exactly the same form in the next thread, but you realize that they have no actual logical weight nor any innovation or you would publish them.

Not what I said at all. Good thing your faith in God doesn't compell you to be honest.

We know that pyramids were possible to make by humans even if they seem out of place for the time and we know of no natural formations of that kind. The pyramids exhibit a particular kind of pattern that is unusual in nature. You cannot make a similar argument about the universe because you have no basis for comparison. But you seem to have no problem pretending like you know what would happen to the universe absent a designer even though you don't actually know the universe has one.

It also doesn't help his argument that we have Histo-Egyptologicall documentation that the Egyptians built the Pyramids there. It's not like we just made it up.

As I stated before, my biggest problem with a strictly material evolution is that "evolutionary theory, as far as I can tell, can in no way explain the origin of life from non-life,But that has nothing to do with evolution.

or self-aware/thinking life from just plain old alive life", which charge you don't deal with at all.Why is this a problem for you?

It also doesn't help his argument that we have Histo-Egyptologicall documentation that the Egyptians built the Pyramids there. It's not like we just made it up.

Well, again, we also had the information that we no of no similar natural formations and that we know of similar man-made creations even if not at that scale. We then continued to look for more evidence as to their origin. We didn't simply say, "Golly, this looks complicated. Must be a result of intelligence."

Tell me which one of the following statements seems more reasonable:
A: "Koon Proxy isn't a rock, so Koon Proxy is probably something else."
B: "Koon Proxy isn't a rock, so it stands to reason he can only be a fern."

A, naturally.

One of the fundamental problems with the IDisms, is that they make a quite staggeringly huge, and utterly unprovable conclusion, based on a lack of knowledge.

We have no evidence what-so-ever that a designer exists. We have no evidence what-so-ever, that anything was designed. The sum total of our knowledge about this, is nothing.

I implied two statements. Here they are:

A. "This bacterium is amazingly complex, therefore something probably designed it."
B. "This bacterium is amazingly complex, therefore it probably just happened that way, but it took a while."

As you state, the sum total of our knowledge is nothing. Therefore, why is one conclusion more or less reasonable than the other? Statement A assumes that the production of complex things follows the pattern we know from our own lives: as far as human things are concerned, if it's complex, somebody probably made it. Statement B looks like it refuses to deal with that sort of hypothetical, but also assumes something: a process we don't see a parallel to anywhere in our normal experience.

ID, that is, ID that has any basis in science, looks at the probabilities and says, "Uh, the single unknown designer hypothesis looks at least as likely as the universal unknown process hypothesis." Evolutionary theory, obviously, takes the opposite view.

Like in the late Middle Ages I referenced before, I think the church has largely confused "evolution" and "God doesn't exist" (EDIT: Only, in the LMA, it was "we go round the sun" and "God doesn't exist"). So naturally they feel threatened. Presumably, history will repeat itself and in another 150 years or so a consensus will be reached, as 200-300 years seems to be about the time a radical new theory takes to settle itself down and deal with all troublemakers, or else be disproved by new evidence.



Who said I was challenging it? I was pointing out some logical inconsistencies in a previously-made argument, and attempting to explain the POV, imho a consistent one, from which I look at evolution/theories of origins. Yes, Christianity is a faith. I'm not crying about it, and what I believe actually has nothing to do with the argument I made.

As I stated before, my biggest problem with a strictly material evolution is that "evolutionary theory, as far as I can tell, can in no way explain the origin of life from non-life, or self-aware/thinking life from just plain old alive life", which charge you don't deal with at all.
So you don't know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis and you don't understand most of the basics of evolution and you want me to expain the development of intelligence? Seriously?

I don't understand electromagnetic radiation. Can you please explain the way a radio takes a signal from the air and turns it into music? Seems like magic to me. I think God did it.

ID will never be science like Freudian Psychoanalysis is largely not science. Much of both are unfalsifiable. The first, however, violates one key aspect of science: it introduces metaphysical, supernatural one-shot wonders.


I also still don't understand why people conflate evolution and abiogenesis; ironically, the latter is another topic I am trying to explain in a similar thread here. It's just not working.

A, naturally.



I implied two statements. Here they are:

A. "This bacterium is amazingly complex, therefore something probably designed it."
B. "This bacterium is amazingly complex, therefore it probably just happened that way, but it took a while."

As you state, the sum total of our knowledge is nothing. Therefore, why is one conclusion more or less reasonable than the other? Statement A assumes that the production of complex things follows the pattern we know from our own lives: as far as human things are concerned, if it's complex, somebody probably made it. Statement B looks like it refuses to deal with that sort of hypothetical, but also assumes something: a process we don't see a parallel to anywhere in our normal experience.

ID, that is, ID that has any basis in science, looks at the probabilities and says, "Uh, the single unknown designer hypothesis looks at least as likely as the universal unknown process hypothesis." Evolutionary theory, obviously, takes the opposite view.

Can you show me those probabilities? How are they calculated? These keep getting trotted out and as of yet, not one equation. What's the matter? Did you make up those 'probabilities'?

So you don't know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis and you don't understand most of the basics of evolution...

It's not my fault most people include abiogenesis as part of their concept of evolution. It is my fault, I guess, that I didn't know you'd be so picky your terms. I'm not sure which part of the basics of evolution I apparently don't understand. o.O

Can you show me those probabilities? How are they calculated? These keep getting trotted out and as of yet, not one equation. What's the matter? Did you make up those 'probabilities'?


Their arguments from improbability often stem from the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. They look at past events and then extrapolate from that to find the probability. From what I understand, it's a lot like shooting at a wall and then drawing the bullseye around it, saying "that's improbable!"

Can you show me those probabilities? How are they calculated? These keep getting trotted out and as of yet, not one equation. What's the matter? Did you make up those 'probabilities'?

No, I can't show you anything. I won't show you anything. You deserve to know nothing! You're a heretic and an unbeliever, and...

Wait a minute. Wrong screed. In fact, I try not to deal in screeds. But sometimes it's tempting. :rolleyes:

But no, I can't show you figures or equations right off the bat. I only used the word "probability" because it seemed to sum up a concept fairly well. If you really want them, I can go find some figures for the probability of certain mutations taking place - some of which figures are incredibly small.

Incidentally, the probability of a creator existing is 0.5. There are only two possibilities, one exists or one doesn't, and there's no particular reason/evidence one way or the other. :p

Their arguments from improbability often stem from the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. They look at past events and then extrapolate from that to find the probability. From what I understand, it's a lot like shooting at a wall and then drawing the bullseye around it, saying "that's improbable!"

Not a lot like. Exactly like.

Evolution is not just a theory and it's not just probable, it happens every day like the force of nature it is, like the sun rising, you can deny how it happens or why it happens but the proof that it does happen is right in front of your eyes every day. Go read a book written in the last twenty years and stop bickering with outdated facts and ideas. Or if you're so apposed to having your beliefs challenged or are too lazy to read...look at the thousands of species of dogs....Then google around a bit and find out how many species of dogs their were ...oh...just 200 years ago. Who said evolution wasn't observable? I've seen undeniable proof...right before my eyes new species of flowers created... not even through some crazy genetic manipulation...but through an age old process that man picked up from nature her self...introduce new variables into the plant's environment and just see what happens. It will adapt or die. Introduce a new variable on a steady consistent time scale and eventually it will have adapted so much that a passerby would never guess that they were even a related species.... Not in a millennium, not in a century, not even a year....freakin' months.
Why is this so hard for religious types to wrap their head around...it was proven that the Earth wasn't flat and wasn't the center of the universe like the Bible says and you got over that. Why is this such a big deal, why do you still want to teach our youth silly superstitions that were created over two thousand years ago! Two thousand years ago....that doesn't make it more likely to be right. It makes it more likely to be wrong....You don't have to stop believing in your god to believe in evolution. Just remind your self that the bible was written by men and though there are some very good ideals to remember in that book, men are fallible and arrogant and often make assumptions based on faulty pretenses. This doesn't make them bad men, just men trying to understand the world around them without the proper tools.

Go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
And pay close attention to the section titled "The Science of Evolution."

Their arguments from improbability often stem from the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. They look at past events and then extrapolate from that to find the probability. From what I understand, it's a lot like shooting at a wall and then drawing the bullseye around it, saying "that's improbable!"

On the other hand, if the guy's been shooting, and you know he's a bad shot, and you realize the target's not been painted yet, so you go paint it so you can score him, and he actually got a bullseye, then saying, "That's improbable" isn't really a stretch.

On the other hand, if the guy's been shooting, and you know he's a bad shot, and you realize the target's not been painted yet, so you go paint it so you can score him, and he actually got a bullseye, then saying, "That's improbable" isn't really a stretch.

God's a bad shot?

Now again, can you please show the formulas for determining the probability or even the logical basis?

You've shown no innovation. You've trotted thoroughly debunked arguments that I expect you'll use in exactly the same form in the next thread, but you realize that they have no actual logical weight nor any innovation or you would publish them.
Talk about no innovation. All you do is say I'm wrong because it's an arguement that is different from the standard arguement and all you do is repeat your arguements to the standard rather than to the new. You have no need to publish because you have not made an arguement. You've simply said my arguement is wrong without even considering it or giving one counter arguement to it. Sort of like what the church did to Darwin. The best you can do is say there is only one universe and we need to observe more than one to say what we have is the standard. That is nothing if not bizarre. That's like saying a scientist can conclude nothing from a first observation because there isn't a second to compare it to.

Talk about no innovation. All you do is say I'm wrong because it's an arguement that is different from the standard arguement and all you do is repeat your arguements to the standard rather than to the new.

Hmmm... my view is widely held in the scientific community for a reason. It's already accepted. I don't have to prove it. I simply have to debunk your disproofs which is remarkably easy since I've been addressing those same hideous arguments for several years.

You have no need to publish because you have not made an arguement. You've simply said my arguement is wrong without even considering it or giving one counter arguement to it.

I don't have to provide a counter argument. You are trying to argue against evolution. I'm proving your wrong. I'm doing it so well that you're forced to drop all of my arguments and just complain about how well I'm doing it. Waaaa!!

Sort of like what the church did to Darwin. The best you can do is say there is only one universe and we need to observe more than one to say what we have is the standard. That is nothing if not bizarre. That's like saying a scientist can conclude nothing from a first observation because there isn't a second to compare it to.
Darwin had an actual theory. He didn't try to base that theory on a misunderstanding of currently accepted scientific principles. You are presenting a 'theory' that relies on a fabrication. In your false comparison, you would have a point if not ofr the fact that I've utterly annihilated your claims.

You base your claims on ignorance and I point out that ignorance. Darwin based his claims on unique and thorough research. Comparing yourself to Darwin is ludicrous. I am debunking your claims by showing what is actually widely held rather than your spurious claims of what is widely held. Your claims of what is widely held are not just provably false, they have been repeatedly proven false... by me. The church did none of the work in debunking Darwin and utterly failed at it. I did the work and I showed how you are arguing from ignorance and using a logical fallacy.

See, comparison actually have to have some basis in reality. Yours doesn't. Darwin published. He didn't trot out tired old arguments over and over again just to have them repeatedly destroyed by logic.

I don't have to change my argument until you prove it wrong. Something you won't do by repeatedly ignoring it.

God's a bad shot?

Now again, can you please show the formulas for determining the probability or even the logical basis?

I actually meant to suggest evolution was a bad shot...

I gave you the probability of a "god" figure existing.

Doing a quick search, I found this site: http://www.geatbx.com/docu/algindex-04.html which explains some of the algorithms for probability of any given mutation. The probability of a given mutation is inversly proportional to the number of variables.

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm is a site debunking a creationist position, so presumably it counts as scientific. Down near the bottom, in one of the notes, it is suggested that "functional proteins are sufficiently common in protein sequence space (roughly 1 in 10^11)" to be discovered by normal random organism mutation.

ID, that is, ID that has any basis in science, looks at the probabilities and says, "Uh, the single unknown designer hypothesis looks at least as likely as the universal unknown process hypothesis." Evolutionary theory, obviously, takes the opposite view.If you were right, both statements would be bollox. You aren't right, though.

The problem for your premise, is that complexity on it's own doesn't imply anything. The universe is a staggeringly complex place. Far more so than your average ape descendent or cola bottle. Yet there's no hint that it's designed or operated by any intelligence what so ever. It seems to be entirely capable of doing what it does on it's own.

The cola bottle, on the other hand, does not. Even if we hand't made it ourselves, it'd still imply design, because it has a perfectly obvious purpose. Great apes (a family we really should be considered part of), does not - nor does any other life.

Add to this that we already has solid evidence that life evolves on it's own, without any apparent goal or purpose. And add to that, that while we - at least in theory - can falsify whether or not it does this, we have no way to falsify whether or not these mechanisms were set in motion or are orchestrated by a designer.

So the actual statements should be:
A: "Hmm.. Wonder what's causing this. Let's try to eliminate all the possible causes we can eliminate."
B: "Wowz! This looks really supendously complex. I bet someone's pulling the strings. Too bad we can't check if it's true. I guess we'll just have to settle with the non-explanation that someone's doing it all on purpose & stop all further research."

I actually meant to suggest evolution was a bad shot...

I gave you the probability of a "god" figure existing.

Doing a quick search, I found this site: http://www.geatbx.com/docu/algindex-04.html which explains some of the algorithms for probability of any given mutation. The probability of a given mutation is inversly proportional to the number of variables.

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm is a site debunking a creationist position, so presumably it counts as scientific. Down near the bottom, in one of the notes, it is suggested that "functional proteins are sufficiently common in protein sequence space (roughly 1 in 10^11)" to be discovered by normal random organism mutation.

Okay, what's the probability I'll win the Illinois lottery? (Just answer. You'll see the point in a minute.)

So the actual statements should be:
A: "Hmm.. Wonder what's causing this. Let's try to eliminate all the possible causes we can eliminate."
B: "Wowz! This looks really supendously complex. I bet someone's pulling the strings. Too bad we can't check if it's true. I guess we'll just have to settle with the non-explanation that someone's doing it all on purpose & stop all further research."

Well, I dunno if any scientist actually thinks the way I do, but the obvious thing to do with the "hmm, looks like it must have been designed" intuition is to try to prove it was designed, or failing that, that it couldn't have happened by chance.

Okay, what's the probability I'll win the Illinois lottery? (Just answer. You'll see the point in a minute.)

I have no exact idea, but it's extremely low. I'm suspecting your point is that an event happening automatically nullifies all arguments saying it shouldn't have been able to happen?

Well, I dunno if any scientist actually thinks the way I do, but the obvious thing to do with the "hmm, looks like it must have been designed" intuition is to try to prove it was designed, or failing that, that it couldn't have happened by chance.The problem is that it's impossible to prove it was designed (at least if it was designed by a deity), and to disprove that it could've happened by chance, would necessitate that you prove it couldn't have happened on it's own at all. You'd have to prove it's impossible, because any chance, regardless of how small, means that it could have happened on it's own.

Consider this. How insanely improbable is it I roll a die 6 times & get 1-6, in that order? The answer is; it doesn't matter how improbable it is, if it happens. I actually did roll just that yestoday, so in hindsight, the probability was 1.

I have no exact idea, but it's extremely low. I'm suspecting your point is that an event happening automatically nullifies all arguments saying it shouldn't have been able to happen?

Nope. My point is that the probability of me winning the lottery depends on the number of tickets I buy and number of lotteries I play in. The problem with all 'probabilities' assigned to abiogenesis is that we have no real idea of how many tickets evolution bought, so to speak, in terms of how many opportunities there were for the proteins to form properly and we also don't know how many planets had the conditions to form such proteins.

We have no way to assign the probability of the event because we don't know anything more than it happened the one time life began. We don't know how many times the conditions failed to create life. We don't know any of the numbers we would need to determine even in terms of scale the probability.

...Koon Proxy? What's that supposed to mean, eh?

'Allo, all.

...Koon Proxy? What's that supposed to mean, eh?

'Allo, all.

Hey, lurker. Good timing. I'm just about to accuse people of strawmen.

Hey, lurker. Good timing. I'm just about to accuse people of strawmen.

Hmm...Yeah, sounds about right. Just after repeated use of the word 'trot'.

...Koon Proxy? What's that supposed to mean, eh?

'Allo, all.

Koon is the name of my dorm at school. Which I explained somewhere else, like a week and a half ago.

Hmm...Yeah, sounds about right. Just after repeated use of the word 'trot'.

Yeah, I'm watching tv, so the thesaurus part of my brain is occupied. I had to pause in order to think of the word 'equation'.

And let's not get started on my use of the words 'meanwhile' or 'ridiculous'. I did throw a ludicrous out there, though, and I don't use that much.

Koon is the name of my dorm at school. Which I explained somewhere else, like a week and a half ago.

Ah...Something to put in a sig *nod*

The hell?

Why are you people even bothering to argue?

You can't apply science to religion, and vice versa. They are diametrically opposed, and neither side ever listens to the other. We'll figure out who's right when we die, and not before then.

Yeah, I'm watching tv, so the thesaurus part of my brain is occupied. I had to pause in order to think of the word 'equation'.

And let's not get started on my use of the words 'meanwhile' or 'ridiculous'. I did throw a ludicrous out there, though, and I don't use that much.

Ah...There's been times I tried to use ludicrous, never could spell it though.

The hell?

Why are you people even bothering to argue?

You can't apply science to religion, and vice versa. They are diametrically opposed, and neither side ever listens to the other. We'll figure out who's right when we die, and not before then.

If we kill you now, will you promise to come back and tell us?

Ah...There's been times I tried to use ludicrous, never could spell it though.

I used trot like seven times in this thread and about four times in all of the other threads I've been in combined. Yay, me.

The hell?

Why are you people even bothering to argue?

You can't apply science to religion, and vice versa. They are diametrically opposed, and neither side ever listens to the other. We'll figure out who's right when we die, and not before then.
The scientists are right and we know that right now. Evolution has proof to back it up, which means it's a fact. The best argument you came come up for religion is that we'll find out if it's true when we die. Here's some news for you mate, you won't find out anything because you'll be DEAD! Get it?

I don't have to provide a counter argument. You are trying to argue against evolution. I'm proving your wrong. I'm doing it so well that you're forced to drop all of my arguments and just complain about how well I'm doing it. Waaaa!!


.
It would help if you read my posts. In several I argued FOR evolution as a logical process to the point in biology where we find ourselves. I even stated that Darwin's theory was critisized and scientists worked hard to find ONE exception that would eliminate the theory. In all of these years no one has been able to find ONE exception to the theory. The more they looked the more evidence that has been found to support the theory. That is the basis of science. As I have explained and you have ignored.

Note at the time of Darwin his theory was not the theory of the vast majority of thinkers. Just because the vast majority agree doesn't make a theory correct. The correctness comes in finding or not finding the exception. The more samples taken the more chance that the exception will be found. But if there is no exception it becomes the accepted theory as others fall away do to the finding of the exception.

I used trot like seven times in this thread and about four times in all of the other threads I've been in combined. Yay, me.

Next, we try for nine!

Evolution will never be taught as a fact, because religious people will get to pissed off.

Evolution will never be taught as a fact, because religious people will get to pissed off.
That's the truth. I spent two years studying geology at college, to me it is undoubtedly a fact.

Next, we try for nine!

Pick a word for me and we'll see how many times I can fit it into the next thread.

So where did the laws come from? If the universe began as randomness there should still be some randomness somewhere. All I'm asking for is one example of that randomness.

That doesn't even make SENSE. The universe didn't "begin" as randomness, it has certain properties, those properties are expressed via physical laws. They dodn't need to come from anywhere, they simply are. Any entity will have laws that govern it, as does the universe. That is simply the inevitable reality of existance.

As far as evolution goes, it's still a theory at best:

For the love of all that is holy STOP with the "it's only a theory" BS and get it through your collective thick skulls that as far as science goes, theory is as GOOD as it GETS.

Pick a word for me and we'll see how many times I can fit it into the next thread.
Baboon! :D

Pick a word for me and we'll see how many times I can fit it into the next thread.

Compliant

Baboon! :D

The phrase 'Compliant baboon'.

Compliant
I'll try to use both words, but I'm dedicating to myself to this word. I'm not saying them together. You'll get me banned.

you'll get me banned.For what - being a compliant baboon? :D

I'll try to use both words, but I'm dedicating to myself to this word. I'm not saying them together. You'll get me banned.

Awww...

Good ole Doonesbury.

Awww...

I picked a thread. Also about gay families.