Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
How Religion Drives Science and Why it Matters
Cornelius Hunter
Blog Archive
-
▼
2011
(148)
-
▼
August
(7)
- A Journalist Gets it Right
- The Indonesian Mimic Octopus
- Octopus Swims Like a Flounder
- Incredible Examples of Camouflage: Octopus Perfect...
- Peacefulness, in a Grown Man, That is Not a Good Sign
- The Cod’s Unlikely Immune System and Evolutionary ...
- Of and About TEs: How Evolutionists Interpret Tran...
-
▼
August
(7)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhy yes it is - after they've been put through the fixed filtration process of natural selection, making the whole process of mutation accumulation entirely NON-RANDOM, of course.
ReplyDeleteBeyond that, I do believe you forgot to include a point in with this post...
o ye of little faith!
ReplyDeleteThis defense mechanism has all the appearance of a sophisticated stealth design. This issue is whether something that appears so well designed actually IS designed. Yes, of course! it is designed.
ReplyDeleteRed Reader -
ReplyDeleteGood question. But how did you arrive at your answer?
"Good question. But how did you arrive at your answer?"
ReplyDeleteThe question was "whether something that appears so well designed actually IS designed." The answer was "yes." Therefore, if you ask the question "is something that appears so well designed actually designed?" then logically you must say "Yes." because that is the correct answer to the question.
Ritchie:
ReplyDelete"Good question. But how did you arrive at your answer?"
===
I would think the something similiar to the way you arrive at FAITH STATEMENT answers.
Especially since all of us now know that "Inference" is a demonic word of sorts to an evolutionist.
VF -
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to tell where the sarcasm starts and parody begins, so let me rephrase my question:
Red Reader: please show how you arrived at your conclusion.
Eocene as good as admits it's purely a faith statement.
No idea what the 'inference' remark is about, but no desire to chase it up either.
Red Reader,
ReplyDeleteThis issue is whether something that appears so well designed actually IS designed. Yes, of course! it is designed.
ID in a nut-shell.
Red Reader,
ReplyDeleteThis issue is whether something that appears so well designed actually IS designed. Yes, of course! it is designed. Praise Jeebus the Designer!!
Real ID in a nut-shell.
CH: (yes, they are random with respect to what counts)
ReplyDeleteAnd we all know that "what counts" is, right? Its random in respect to not being God.
This is yet another example of a smuggled assumption that Cornellious shares with his target audience?
Cornelius, exactly how did the octopus acquire its ability to blend in with its surroundings, in your opinion?
ReplyDeleteThe whole truth:
ReplyDeleteCornelius, exactly how did the octopus acquire its ability to blend in with its surroundings, in your opinion?
Whether it was strictly via natural means as the evolutionists mandate, or by miracle as creationists say, or some combination, or something else, I don't know. I tend not to have a strong opinion where not warranted.
Do you not see that the problem is not with people floating their ideas, but with misrepresenting science, denial and hypocrisy?
Scott:
ReplyDeleteAnd we all know that "what counts" is, right?
Apparently you do not. What "counts" is evolutionary fitness. In evolutionary theory, biological variation does not anticipate. More fit designs must arise via sheer luck. No teleology, remember?
CH: ... I don't know. I tend not to have a strong opinion where not warranted.
ReplyDeleteThe implicit claim that you cannot know, in principle, rather than practice, because because the biological complexity we observe is beyond human reasoning and problem solving, isn't a strong opition?
CH: Do you not see that the problem is not with people floating their ideas, but with misrepresenting science, denial and hypocrisy?
Hypocricy? Missrepresntation?
This, from someone who blatently missreprested, oh say, Karl Popper?
And you say we're in denial?
Dr Hunter:
ReplyDeleteWhether it was strictly via natural means as the evolutionists mandate, or by miracle as creationists say, or some combination, or something else, I don't know. I tend not to have a strong opinion where not warranted.
It seems you have a fairly strong leaning away from the evolutionary explanation by the tone of the post. Just curious but how would the combination of miracle and natural be ever sorted out? Would the question of why the designer did it a certain way then become a legitimate area of scientific interest?
Ritchie:
ReplyDelete"Eocene as good as admits it's purely a faith statement."
====
Both sides make faith statements. Your side simply denies it. Hence it is obvious to viewers here that no amount of debate on the matter will ever shake your FAITH. It remains intact even if in your own mind.
---
Ritchie:
"No idea what the 'inference' remark is about, but no desire to chase it up either."
===
That's convenient!
Cornelius Hunter:
ReplyDelete"Whether it was strictly via natural means as the evolutionists mandate, or by miracle as creationists say, or some combination, or something else, I don't know. I tend not to have a strong opinion where not warranted."
====
This answer will always be unsatisfactory to them. It isn't that they are incapable of admitting faith statements when it comes to end game story telling, fable fabrication or their own version of myth manufacturing to explain the outcome. It's more of a heart(seat of motivation) issue.
----
Cornelius Hunter:
"Do you not see that the problem is not with people floating their ideas, but with misrepresenting science, denial and hypocrisy?"
====
Your a heretic in their eyes of faith. Don't expect 'Thorton' *cough-cough* 'The Whole Truth' to admit anything.
----
Cornelius Hunter:
"Apparently you do not. What "counts" is evolutionary fitness. In evolutionary theory, biological variation does not anticipate. More fit designs must arise via sheer luck. No teleology, remember?"
====
Of course they remember. They just hate being reminded about that number one point on that list in their Articles of Faith, "No Intelligence Allowed". You and others pressing them to come up with naturalistic explanations ONLY of just how luck, chance and unexplained magic created sophisticated designs in the natural world minus the employment of an intelligence which would use purpose and intent just encites further knashing of teeth.
velikovskys:
ReplyDelete"It seems you have a fairly strong leaning away from the evolutionary explanation by the tone of the post."
===
Actually, I've never ever noticed this at all. What I've personally observed is that Cornelius doesn't want to be treated like some pre-schooler who sits in a circle while the teaching reads a story from a Hans Christian Andersen script and then be told to accept such story as a cold hard FACT.
---
velikovskys:
"Just curious but how would the combination of miracle and natural be ever sorted out?"
===
It won't while all the negative elements present around us continue to spin stories for no other reason than a motivational race for justification of lifestyle & worldview which colour truth. Admittedly both sides of the issue have this problem.
---
Velikovskys:
"Would the question of why the designer did it a certain way then become a legitimate area of scientific interest?"
===
This approach you are suggesting actually already exists. This is what Cornelius has been pointing out. These constant justifications for evolutionary truth by evolutionists of "why a designer would do such and such for this or that reason doesn't make sense to us, therefore evolution must be true" is what Cornelius has been pointing out.
And if it is a legitimate and justified question, then why doesn't any evolutionist reveal any of the scientific method experiments they used to arrive at those conclusions about how they reached into the mind of an entity they insist doesn't exist in the first place and what such a higher power would or wouldn't do in any situation ??? Now the experiment is supposed to be repeatable and allow others of us to reach those same conclusions. Yet we never receive clear explanations(without question side steppings and burden shift tactics) of how they arrived at these conclusions other than it was gut felt, heart motivated metaphysical reasonings, which are supposed to be taboo according to naturalistic explanations ONLY rules.
Cornelius -
ReplyDelete"Whether it was strictly via natural means as the evolutionists mandate, or by miracle as creationists say, or some combination, or something else, I don't know. I tend not to have a strong opinion where not warranted."
You're honestly as happy to accept 'It was magic' as you are to accept a well-evidenced, rock solid scientific theory? That says a lot.
"In evolutionary theory, biological variation does not anticipate. More fit designs must arise via sheer luck."
No, Cornelius, they do not. The mechanism of Natural Selection is categorically non-random. How is it you still don't get this?
Eocene -
ReplyDelete"Both sides make faith statements. Your side simply denies it."
If you see no different between 'My holy book says so, therefore it's true' and holding a reasonable opinion arrived at through hypothetico-deductive reasoning, then that's your affair. Simply know that the difference is marked, and places the latter far and away above the former in terms of rational opinions to hold.
"Your a heretic in their eyes of faith."
Talk about projection!!! You keep talking as though science has holy books and dogma and heretics - entirely RELIGIOUS concepts. Until you can stop seeing everything in religious terms then you will never understand how non-religious institutions operate.
"Of course they remember. They just hate being reminded about that number one point on that list in their Articles of Faith, "No Intelligence Allowed"."
You mean 'Never use 'miracle' as part of a scientific explanation'? It certainly does exist, though we certainly don't hate to be reminded of it. To break this rule is to kill science dead in it's tracks. Something Cornelius stubbornly and wilfully refuses to acknowledge.
""It seems you have a fairly strong leaning away from the evolutionary explanation by the tone of the post."
===
Actually, I've never ever noticed this at all."
Then you must never have read a single post by Cornelius. Practically every single one can be broken down as:
LOOK AT THIS. DID EVOLUTION MAKE THIS? I DON'T THINK SO. CAN 'Evolutionists' EXPLAIN THIS? I BET THEY CAN'T... RELIGION DRIVES SCIENCE, AND IT MATTERS.
Ritchie:
ReplyDelete"If you see no different between 'My holy book says so, therefore it's true' and holding a reasonable opinion arrived at through hypothetico-deductive reasoning, then that's your affair."
====
I love this. The Brit who insisted earlier he wouldn't bite. Two competing religious books here Ritchie - The Bible & Origin of the Species.
----
Ritchie:
"Simply know that the difference is marked, and places the latter far and away above the former in terms of rational opinions to hold."
====
This is beautiful, more religiosity and Fuzzifications.
----
Ritchie:
"Talk about projection!!! You keep talking as though science has holy books and dogma and heretics - entirely RELIGIOUS concepts."
====
Of course you are entirely correct, I should have listed more than just "Origin of the Species".
Here you go - "The Descent of Man" , "The Blind Watchmaker" , The Selfish Gene" , "The God Delusion" , "Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life" , "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomena" , "Why Evolution is True" , and almost every single evolutionary text book and paper referenced by Cornelius Hunter and others which invariably will employ the necessary use of metaphysics to gap fill where naturalistic explanations are a deep void.
----
Ritchie:
"Until you can stop seeing everything in religious terms then you will never understand how non-religious institutions operate."
====
Wow, massive amounts of the usual 'double standards' platform and "Pot Calling Kettle Black" playground mud slinging, Nice.
----
Ritchie:
"You mean 'Never use 'miracle' as part of a scientific explanation'? It certainly does exist, though we certainly don't hate to be reminded of it. To break this rule is to kill science dead in it's tracks."
====
Always remember Ritchie, that the Evolutionist's religious word/term for 'miracle' = "Emergence". Darwinism has it's very own distinct vocabulary. Let's consider some other faith based religious default word/terms invented for the expressed purpose of not admitting to John/Jane Q-Public that Evolutionists might not exactly know what they are talking about, so the use of such lingo is to justify not having to prove anything.
The above holy books are loaded with them. You know the word/terms I'm refering to Ritchie, the surface polish ones or the eye candy ones.
fixed filtration process, natural selection, random mutation, mutation accumulation, fitness landscape, memes, self replicators, and so forth, but let's also add to the mix any number of insulting words, foul language and vulgarites and you have not so much a mirror of science, as much as you have a shaping of science in the image of passionately driven evolutionary religious bias.
Eocene -
ReplyDelete"I love this. The Brit who insisted earlier he wouldn't bite."
What can I say? I'm obviously a glutton for punishment.
"Two competing religious books here Ritchie - The Bible & Origin of the Species."
No: one religious holy book and one work of scientific literature. That you can't see there's a difference speaks volumes.
"...and almost every single evolutionary text book and paper referenced by Cornelius Hunter and others which invariably will employ the necessary use of metaphysics to gap fill where naturalistic explanations are a deep void."
By 'metaphysics' I presume you mean 'No miracles allowed in scientific explanations'? I know Cornelius is impervious to this point, but do you think you could at least TRY to reflect on this point for a few moments:
EVERY THEORY IN SCIENCE ASSUMES METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM!!! IT IS A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE FOR SCIENCE!!!
It boils down to 'assume miracles can't happen'! Which, yes, is an assumption, but science is pretty damn productive on the back of it. You and Cornelius are absolutely wrong to suggest the Theory of Evolution is at all unusual in assuming methodological naturalism, that assuming it is unscientific, or that it is the result of religious bias. It is simply a necessity for performing science.
Please, please, please TRY to grasp this point. It really is SO important to figuring out why Cornelius is so far off the mark here.
Whether it was strictly via natural means as the evolutionists mandate, or by miracle as creationists say, or some combination, or something else, I don't know.
ReplyDeleteAs Ritchie and others have noted, it is not possible to practice science if one allows for appeals to the miraculous. God is not admitted to the laboratory.
The same truth applies to history and all other empirical disciplines.
Ritchie:
ReplyDelete"No: one religious holy book and one work of scientific literature. That you can't see there's a difference speaks volumes."
====
Origin of the Species is loaded with faith based statements by a man who admitted he had a beef with God. God took his daughter. God wouldn't make animal-like savages in South America and superior white conquering Europeans such as Englishmen.
----
Ritchie:
"It boils down to 'assume miracles can't happen'! Which, yes, is an assumption, but science is pretty damn productive on the back of it. You and Cornelius are absolutely wrong to suggest the Theory of Evolution is at all unusual in assuming methodological naturalism, that assuming it is unscientific, or that it is the result of religious bias. It is simply a necessity for performing science."
=====
The problem is that ASSUMPTIONS, ASSERTIONS, SPECULATIONS, GUT/HEART FELT OPINIONS, etc don't translate as FACT. Factoid maybe, but NOT Fact.
Let's take the example a couple threads below with the Cod Fish Evolved Immune System anomalie. The paper offers nothing more than incense burning before the iconic image of Darwin. In fact that paper even admitted that it challenged the "fundamental assumptions about evolution". So the whole argument(Fundamental Assumptions about Evolution) rested on a basis of previous conjecture has been turned upside down. But never fear for Evolutionists have the ability to turn losses into wins for Darwin. It offered no proofs, just Faith Statements. Why ???
Because ultimately this dogma lacks empathy for the truth and the consumer reading learning John/Jane Q-Public. It didn't matter that they offered no proofs, as long as the paper credits Darwin with the anomalie. Some time back I was reading an article about Corporations. It was comparing Corporations to psychopaths. Why ??? Because Corporations lack empathy to the consumer public. Why ??? Read here:
Fiduciary Duties and Potential Liabilities of Directors and Officers
of Financially Distressed Corporations
So rather than empathy for the consumer, CEOs are obligated to care for the needs and interests of Board of Directors and Investors. Investors are an impatient lot. They demand quick turn around profit on their money. They don't have the patience to see if a product is safe and meets all the environmental safety standards laid out by any authority. Evolutionary Scientists and the Entities that Fund them are much like those CEOs and Investors. The Grantors of Funds demand specific turn around on their investment, especially when it comes to this religious Dogma.
Take for example, Kjetill Sigurd Jakobsen, Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES). Siggy is alot like a CEO. He works for a company that demands evolutionary explanations. Though Siggy and gang offered nothing of real value on the proof front, they did offer to burn a pinch of incense on the alter before Darwin's Iconic image. They did this by the mere mention a couple of times of the word evolution itself. The Funding folks don't care for actual proof, it's a matter of hijacking the credits. Siggy does what he's told and he gets to keep his job and funding. The Funders have Zero empathy of what they consider an ignorant public anyway. All knowledge comes from them and anyone questioning their track record is demonized and vilified for attempting to question the religious bias of those entrusted with worship to the bearded Buddha.
Pedant:
ReplyDelete"As Ritchie and others have noted, it is not possible to practice science if one allows for appeals to the miraculous."
====
And yet this is what is done all the time when crackpot storytelling is pimped off as science.
----
Pedant:
"God is not admitted to the laboratory."
====
No, instead another type of animist god is put in it's place.
----
Pedant:
"The same truth applies to history and all other empirical disciplines."
====
Is this the same truth that is presently bastardizing our planet's natural resources as a result of misuse and abuse of those same sciences ??? Discipline is hardly an appropriate word/term for it.
Eocene -
ReplyDelete"Origin of the Species is loaded with faith based statements by a man who admitted he had a beef with God."
That doesn't matter because we don't treat every word in the book as inerrant. Because it isn't a holy book. That's the difference between a religious text and a scientific one - we ANALYSE it to see if it's right.
There were mistakes in Origin, and any personal anecdotes are totally besides the point. The only relevant factor is that this book contained a radical idea - one which has been bourne out by decades of scientific research and is now practically the foundation of biology.
A holy book is defended at all costs against being tested. Scientific literature is immediately put through its paces. That is the crucial difference.
"Let's take the example a couple threads below with the Cod Fish Evolved Immune System anomalie. The paper offers nothing more than incense burning before the iconic image of Darwin. In fact that paper even admitted that it challenged the "fundamental assumptions about evolution"."
What a very dishonest quote-mine. Shame on you!
The actual quote says: "These observations affect fundamental assumptions about the evolution of the adaptive immune system and its components in vertebrates."
In other words, the results challenged what we know about HOW THIS FEATURE evolved, not WHETHER EVOLUTION IS TRUE.
I also note you totally ignored the one point I particularly drew attention to:
ALL SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ASSUME METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM!!!!
It is not unscientific to do so, ToE is not unique or even unusual in doing so, and it is not done out of religious bias.
Again, I implore you, please please please, before you head straight to the comments box to dash out an angry rebuttal, just stop and THINK for a minute! Ponder this point! I'll be happy to expand on it if you wish. It is absolutely essential for you to stop making yourself sound like a scientifically-illiterate clown like Cornelius.
velikovskys
ReplyDeleteJust curious but how would the combination of miracle and natural be eversorted out?
Eocene
It won't while all the negative elements present around us continue to spin stories for no other reason than a motivational race for justification of lifestyle & worldview which colour truth. Admittedly both sides of the issue have this
problem.
But could it ever? Do you allow " miracles" wherever scientific explanations are at odds which religious explanations? Is only one religion's dogma to be considered as legit ? Which version of that one will be accepted?
Eocene:
The problem is that ASSUMPTIONS, ASSERTIONS, SPECULATIONS, GUT/HEART FELT OPINIONS, etc don't translate as FACT. Factoid maybe, but NOT Fact.
There is a debate whether science is guilty of this charge (at least hereabouts)but religion is defined by this description. If science is questionable
now, allowing the "miracle " into the mix is crazy.
It is absolutely essential for you to stop making yourself sound like a scientifically-illiterate clown like Cornelius.
ReplyDeleteThat's not fair. Dr Hunter is neither scientifically illiterate (he is literate with limitations - but so are we all) nor a clown.
Eocene:
ReplyDeleteIs this the same truth that is presently bastardizing our planet's natural resources as a result of misuse and abuse of those same sciences ??? Discipline is hardly an appropriate word/term for it.
So it is not scientific method after all,it is what" institution of science" "does that is your beef. You might find some agreement in this.
Pedant -
ReplyDelete"That's not fair. Dr Hunter is neither scientifically illiterate (he is literate with limitations - but so are we all) nor a clown."
You think so? I rather think you're being too generous here. However sincerely intentioned (or not), Dr Hunter consistently fails to understand the very nature and process of science. And nor can I honestly attribute this to mere ignorance with the number of times he has been put straight (and promptly ignored it). Literacy is not brought about by will alone. The word implies a level of understanding which Cornelius consistently fails to meet.
As for clown, well perhaps that was unkind. Though not, I maintain, without merit. When you've put someone right 20 times and they keep stubbornly repeating the exact same error it sounds, to my ears, ridiculous - clownishly so.
Velikovskys:
ReplyDelete"But could it ever? Do you allow " miracles" wherever scientific explanations are at odds which religious explanations?
====
What you keep avoiding are the miracle myth storytellings that Evolutionists invent on the fly when NO REAL WORLD ANSWERS can be had. If science would keep it's 'Damnedable' nose neutral in the first place, dump the pathetic ideological philosophying and political worldview promotion, then we wouldn't have this issue now would we ??? And that goes for the other two, but don't hold your breath there either. Even now those other forums, like the atheist forums are gearing up for next years election bids. What the heck does that have to do with science, especially under the definitions we've been force fed ???
Velikovskys:
"Is only one religion's dogma to be considered as legit ?
Which version of that one will be accepted?"
====
Well isn't that the whole point ??? Which dogma do you allow - creationism, IDism, Evolutionism, Islamism, Buddhism, or what ??? Science is supposed to be neutral.
----
Velikovskys:
"There is a debate whether science is guilty of this charge (at least hereabouts)but religion is defined by this description."
====
Evolutionism fits all the definitions of a religious worldview. The majority of it's dogma are nothing but faith statements.
----
Velikovskys:
"If science is questionable now, allowing the "miracle " into the mix is crazy."
====
But it already does exist in evolutionary biology. The word 'miracle' has been cleaned up by evolutionists and employs other metaphors to mask it's religiosity. This is the Pot calling the Kettle Black and the whole time denying It Is the Pot.
----
Ritchie:
"ALL SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ASSUME METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM!!!!"
"It is not unscientific to do so, ToE is not unique or even unusual in doing so, and it is not done out of religious bias."
====
Ritchie, we're not talking about ALL the Sciences. This is the common ploy used by evolutionst's that anyone against Evolution is against all SCIENCE itself and therefore they must be anti-science. This is a flat out lie. Nothing could be further from the truth. The company Monsanto is playing this stupid stunt of calling anyone who is against their Franken-Organism creation with an Anti-Science lables. People are not against that science, they are against the misuse and abuse of the science.
More than any other science, evolutionary biology has faith based issues from it's Abiogenesis subject avoidance to it's present day faith in Macro-Miracles.
Eocene -
ReplyDelete"Ritchie, we're not talking about ALL the Sciences. This is the common ploy used by evolutionst's that anyone against Evolution is against all SCIENCE itself and therefore they must be anti-science. This is a flat out lie."
It is absolutely NOT a lie. Is is completely true!!
The charge laid against the theory of evolution is that it accepts only naturalistic explanations. In other words, it dismisses, out of hand, the possibility of magic, miracles and non-naturalistic processes. This, to hear Cornelius tell it, is a religious position, since it assumes God doesn't/wouldn't interfere in the world.
But ALL SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ACCEPT ONLY NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS!!! You might only be attacking the Theory of Evolution with this accusatrion, but it is an accusation applicable to every theory in science! Why can't you see that? You might CHOOSE to attack only one theory, but if the accusation you use applies to all theories, then you ARE anti-science whether you mean to be or not.
"More than any other science, evolutionary biology has faith based issues from it's Abiogenesis subject avoidance to it's present day faith in Macro-Miracles."
What??!? Who is avoiding abiogenesis? It is an active, productive and fascinating area of study. And what on Earth are Macro-miracles? There are absolutely no miracles in the process of macroevolution. Not one. Not a single one.
Eocene wrote: This is the common ploy used by evolutionst's that anyone against Evolution is against all SCIENCE itself and therefore they must be anti-science.
ReplyDeleteBut then wrote….
Eocene: The company Monsanto is playing this stupid stunt of calling anyone who is against their Franken-Organism creation with an Anti-Science lables. People are not against that science, they are against the misuse and abuse of the science.
No one is complaining we cannot know if Monsanto's "Franken-Organisms" were the work of miracles, rather than Monsanto's own scientists, which would undermine science as a whole.
Rather they are concerned with the long term effects of introducing them into the biosphere.
So, this appears to be a ploy of equivocation.
Ritchie:
ReplyDelete"It is absolutely NOT a lie. Is is completely true!!"
====
So you are agreeing with the belief that anyone against Evolution is against ALL Science ???
Thanks for confirming that.
----
Ritchie:
"But ALL SCIENTIFIC THEORIES ACCEPT ONLY NATURALISTIC EXPLANATIONS!!!"
====
But other sciences don't attempt to shove down philosophical worldviews down others throats as Evolution, Creationism and IDism do. I've never heard of any of the other sciences attempting miracle explanations and if they do, they usually admit it's speculation, assumption, etc. Although depending on religiously biased individuals within any of those other science, then there are acceptions.
====
Ritchie:
"What??!? Who is avoiding abiogenesis? It is an active, productive and fascinating area of study."
====
Really, so the understanding that information and codes are nothing more than rock landslides, snowflakes or Astrological codes found in Stars ??? Seriously, these crackpots ideas have floated around here from these very boards.
----
Rithcie:
"And what on Earth are Macro-miracles? There are absolutely no miracles in the process of macroevolution. Not one. Not a single one."
====
Yes they are. Every account of Macro is nothing more than Faith based statement making. There's no need to give examples, because we've been through this junk before. If your people had evidence, it would have been presented minus the fable fabrications for fill in the voids and deep crevaces. Are creationism loaded with fables ??? Of course they are when they attempt to go beyond what is written in their own holy book. They too have nothing more than assumptions, assertions, speculations and conjecture. The sad thing is they of all people should know better, but that is typical of most lazy followers of a faith.
If science was neutral, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If science would do it's business in actually finding out how things work and applying such in the field, our planet's natural world would not be on the brink of total collaspe. What discusts me more than anything else is the Fundamentalists side demonizing anything environmental. Mostly it's as a result of some rediculous opponant consiodered to be left of their views, yet by their own supposed belief system, they should be championing such causes.
The Leftwing side however isn't off the hook either. Though there may be some element for environment, most take it up as nothing more than power struggle against thier mirror image counterparts. When it's all said and done, the various faiths of both Kamps are at fault for this world's failure.
Beam Me Up Scotty:
ReplyDelete"So, this appears to be a ploy of equivocation."
====
Here Scotty, this is just for you. No equivocations necessary.
'Pseudoscience is any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that demarcate true science. Pseudoscience is designed to have the appearance of being scientific, but lacks any of the substance of science.'
'Pseudoscientists have discovered an obvious way to 'cheat' the scientific method.
It goes like this:
(1) Pick a personal belief that you want to 'prove' is true.
(2) Make new observations or experiments, and note the results.
(3) Think up some clever way by which to shoehorn your personal belief to said results.
(4) Falsely claim that your personal belief predicts the particular results, and that the observations/experiment confirmed your suspicions.
Eocene -
ReplyDelete"But other sciences don't attempt to shove down philosophical worldviews down others throats as Evolution, Creationism and IDism do. I've never heard of any of the other sciences attempting miracle explanations and if they do, they usually admit it's speculation, assumption, etc. Although depending on religiously biased individuals within any of those other science, then there are acceptions."
That's so rich!
The only reason we have to explain evolution in terms of miracles etc, is BECAUSE of Creationism.
Quick recap: Religion says God does did everything, controls everything, etc. Then science came along and gave us much better explanations as to how the world works: why planets orbit stars, why released objects fall, how weather patterns work, and how life came about.
Now it is only in the case of how life came about that the religious types object. I admit this is a little curious. If Cornelius REALLY had a problem with methodological naturalism, why doesn't he object to the theory of gravity? It, after all, assumes God ISN'T pushing objects down. Why doesn't he object to meteorology? It, after all, assumes God ISN'T directly controlling the weather?
Possibly they hate the theory of evolution specifically because it denies that humans are special from other animals. But whatever the reason, the origin of life IS the only place where the religious types pipe up and object to SCIENCE'S explanation: the theory of evolution. They dream up their own pseudo-scientific theory to oppose it - Creationism. And all of a sudden they make enough noise to convince people there is a genuine scientific debate between the two.
Make no mistake, there is not. The only people championing creationism are the religious crackpots.
This does not mean the theory of evolution is religious - it means it is the only area of study where religious people object and attack SCIENCE on religious grounds.
"Really, so the understanding that information and codes are nothing more than rock landslides, snowflakes or Astrological codes found in Stars ??? Seriously, these crackpots ideas have floated around here from these very boards."
You've lost your thread. Are you talking about abiogenesis or information and codes? Please try to stay focused.
"Every account of Macro is nothing more than Faith based statement making."
A miracle is not a mere statement of faith!!! A miracle is a violation or temporary suspension of natural laws, especially by a deity. And macroevolution at no point calls for a violation or suspension of natural laws, especially by a deity! So it does not require a miracle! Capiche?
"If science was neutral, we wouldn't be having this discussion."
It is really hard to imagine how science could possibly be neutral. It allows only for naturalistic explanations, which according to Cornelius and the knuckle-dragging ID-ers, is a religious position. But if it DID allow for non-naturalistic explanations, that would REALLY be a religious position. How exactly is science to stay neutral? Where is the middle ground? Allow miracles or don't allow them?
Eocone: Here Scotty, this is just for you. No equivocations necessary.
ReplyDeleteRather than a response, we get a change of subject. Par for the course.
Quote: "Pseudoscience is any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science…
I'll stop you right there. Since when is evolutionary theory *trying* to *gain* legitimacy? I guess you really do need to get beamed back to whatever alternative universe you live in.
Quote: …by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that demarcate true science.
Oh, that's right. You're among those who seems to think it's possible to have a reasonable discussion on what is while refusing to fully disclose one's position on science in the first place.
Quote: Pseudoscience is designed to have the appearance of being scientific, but lacks any of the substance of science.'
"That's just what the designer must have wanted" isn't science. That the knowledge we observe in the genome is actually explained by the claim it was previously located in some abstract, unexplainable "mind" isn't science either.
While it might appear scientific, it merely pushes the problem into some unexplainable realm.
Quote: Pseudoscientists have discovered an obvious way to 'cheat' the scientific method.
Let me guess, we're just supposed to accept that Evolution meets the definition of pseudoscience merely because you've used the term evolution and pseudoscience in the same comment?
Ritchie said...
ReplyDelete"Good question. But how did you arrive at your answer?"
Thanks for the compliment Ritchie and sorry I'm late responding.
Though I am absolutely certain that you will find fault with this answer, the answer is, I arrived at the conclusion that this wonderful mechanism was designed in EXACTLY the same way that I arrive to the conclusion when I see for example a lawnmower that the lawnmower is designed.
If you want a more detailed explanation than that I suggest that your interest is in knowing more about the theory of Intelligent Design. That's the theory that studies the properties of things in an effort to know how one may look at for example a lawnmower and know by looking that it is designed. (See discovery.org)
Scotty:
ReplyDelete"Let me guess, we're just supposed to accept that Evolution meets the definition of pseudoscience merely because you've used the term evolution and pseudoscience in the same comment? "
====
Not at all Mr Scott. You can give your thanks over to rationalwiki.org for the definitions & explanations.
LOL
Eocene, why don't you just lie and say you already provided the definitions like you lied about having defined 'information' and 'code'?
ReplyDeleteIsn't lying to make points somewhat your forte?
Red -
ReplyDeleteSo in short, you 'know' it's designed because they SEEM designed to you?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRed Reader said...
ReplyDeleteI arrived at the conclusion that this wonderful mechanism was designed in EXACTLY the same way that I arrive to the conclusion when I see for example a lawnmower that the lawnmower is designed.
You only know that a lawnmower is human designed because you have already seen similar examples of human designed things. Even in the infamous 'Mt Rushmore' ID case you only know humans carved the faces because you have seen previous examples of human sculpting and human faces.
The big problem that ID refuses to address is how to tell design when you haven't seen any previous examples of the unknown object. Where have you ever seen previously designed biological life?
ID's 'solution' is to look for the most superficial similarities to declare 'design' (i.e. the bacteria flagellum looks like a motor) while completely ignoring the critical differences. They sometimes dress up this dumb argument by claiming that designed objects have lots of 'Complex Specified Information', but they can never define CSI or give an objective way to measure it. Can you tell me how to calculate the CSI of Mt. Rushmore?
Suppose I showed you a photo the Rocky Mountains with thousands of peaks and told you one peak was actually a sculpture of a space alien. How would you go about picking that one out with no other information available, just the sculpture itself?
Scott: Let me guess, we're just supposed to accept that Evolution meets the definition of pseudoscience merely because you've used the term evolution and pseudoscience in the same comment?
ReplyDeleteEcocene: Not at all Mr Scott. You can give your thanks over to rationalwiki.org for the definitions & explanations. LOL
In case you've having difficulty following this (Darwin knows I am)....
Scott: You do realize that merely posting the definition of pseudoscience in a comment isn't an argument that evolution is actually is pseudoscience, right?
Eocene: Oh, I guess you're right. But it's an argument because the definition of pseudoscience in my comment came from rational wiki…LOL?
Scott:
ReplyDelete"Let me guess, we're just supposed to accept that Evolution meets the definition of pseudoscience."
====
There's no earthly reason to guess here Scotty. Undirected, impersonal, purposeless processes do not adapt and function and no amount of hijacking intelligent designing concepts in any experiment is ever going to satisfy questions of that precious #1 on the list of your articles of faith, namely, "No Intelligence Allowed".
Some advice, go back on the Meds and stop tripping off into netherworlds of illusion.
Ritchie:
ReplyDelete"The actual quote says: "These observations affect fundamental assumptions about the evolution of the adaptive immune system and its components in vertebrates."
====
Of course. The very word 'evolution' itself has become a meaningless catch-all assumption phraze for anything biologists cannot explain.
====
Ritchie:
"In other words, the results challenged what we know about HOW THIS FEATURE evolved, not WHETHER EVOLUTION IS TRUE."
====
And therein lies the problem. Not only do they never satisfactorily prove how things evolved, but when they find something that doesn't fit the basic fundamentals of the myth, the fix is, evolution nevertheless evolved it. Just the magical word itself seems to carry great power for the believer. There use it and wear it as some amulet or talisman around the neck as a sort if the object has the ability to bring good luck or protection to its owner/wearer.
So if the immune system exists, 'it evolved'. If a new one is suddenly discovered, 'it evolved'. If it lives a passive subdued existance on the sea floor or glides through ocean depths, 'it evolved'. No matter what gets discovered, 'it evolved' and no amount of questioning the dogma and demanding proofs that are lacking in any paper will ever change that. Congradulations, your faith remains intact Ritchie.
----
Ritchie:
"It is really hard to imagine how science could possibly be neutral."
====
And this sir is about the only thing we can agree on.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRitchie:
ReplyDelete"Make no mistake, there is not. The only people championing creationism are the religious crackpots."
====
I agree, there are alot of religious crackpots in the Creationist Kamps, however would you also agree that an evolutionist would be a crackpot if they were to desparately define rocks in landslides, shapes of snowflakes and mystic patterns in stars as coded information ???
----
Ritchie:
"You've lost your thread. Are you talking about abiogenesis or information and codes? Please try to stay focused."
====
Nothing's been lost. It's the only logical discussion that should ever take place. Abiogenesis and the RNA-Fairytale world also never deal with the information contained in the actual RNA. Find the origin of the information of those codes and from that point you can start to talk guided-directed evolution. Until then, blind forces of purposeless Dice Theory will always remain meaningless faith-based statements that have no business being associated with science.
----
Ritchie:
A miracle is not a mere statement of faith!!! A miracle is a violation or temporary suspension of natural laws, especially by a deity. And macroevolution at no point calls for a violation or suspension of natural laws, especially by a deity! So it does not require a miracle! Capiche?
====
Natural Laws ??? Let's discuss Natural Laws.
The genetic information found in DNA and for that matter codes of any kind have never once been shown to emerge from lifeless, purposeless, unintelligent evolutionary processes. (Keep focused on that #1 article of faith now - "No Intelligence Allowed")
Natural laws can be used to explain their function and operation but can never explain their origin. ONLY the imaginative minds of evolutionists have the uncanny ability to fabricate origins scenarios and pimp them factoidally through echo-chambering. Therefore the term "MIRACLE" is highly appropriate when dealing with evolutionary explanations.
VERSTEHEN ???
Eocene -
ReplyDelete"Of course. The very word 'evolution' itself has become a meaningless catch-all assumption phraze for anything biologists cannot explain."
No it hasn't. You just don't understand what it means.
"And therein lies the problem. Not only do they never satisfactorily prove how things evolved, but when they find something that doesn't fit the basic fundamentals of the myth, the fix is, evolution nevertheless evolved it."
This discovery does not, at all, fail to 'fit the basic fundamentals' of evolutionary theory. It is just a new discovery, just as find a new strain of virus does not invalidate germ theory! Don't you get that?
"No matter what gets discovered, 'it evolved' and no amount of questioning the dogma and demanding proofs that are lacking in any paper will ever change that."
The theory of evolution is highly falsifiable - and yet it has not been falsified. We have a truly vast cache of evidence from many fields which support it and precisely none which seriously contradicts it.
The problem arises when people such as Cornelius make it their business to dismiss the supporting evidence and to distort and magnify every single interesting new discovery and incorrectly announce it as falsifying evidence for ToE.
""It is really hard to imagine how science could possibly be neutral."
====
And this sir is about the only thing we can agree on."
Then how can you criticise science for NOT being neutral?!?!?
Eocene -
ReplyDelete"would you also agree that an evolutionist would be a crackpot if they were to desparately define rocks in landslides, shapes of snowflakes and mystic patterns in stars as coded information ???"
Well I'd ask them off the bat to define exactly what they meant by coded information.
"Nothing's been lost. It's the only logical discussion that should ever take place. Abiogenesis and the RNA-Fairytale world also never deal with the information contained in the actual RNA. Find the origin of the information of those codes and from that point you can start to talk guided-directed evolution."
1) Abiogenesis is not the Theory of Evolution. ToE says NOTHING about the origin of the universe, the planet, or life on the planet. It describes the processes by which life develops ONCE IT HAS ALREADY BEGUN.
2) The biologists working to uncover the mysteries of abiogenesis ARE working to find the source of information within RNA. That's the whole point. That's what they do. However, the moment they open the door to the possibility that 'It was a miracle', then all science will stop, all work will be invalidated, and we will never discover the truth.
"Until then, blind forces of purposeless Dice Theory will always remain meaningless faith-based statements that have no business being associated with science."
What's Dice Theory? I hope you don't mean 'random chance'. Because if you do, then ToE is absolutely NOT random chance. Random mutations DO come about by chance, it's true, but natural selction filters out the benficial ones from the disadvantageous ones. To call evolution 'radom chance' would be like flipping 100 coins, removing all the ones which come up tails, and then claiming the others 'all came up heads by random chance'.
Plus as an aside, 'random chance' does have an important role in science - in the formulation of null hypotheses!
"The genetic information found in DNA and for that matter codes of any kind have never once been shown to emerge from lifeless, purposeless, unintelligent evolutionary processes."
Absolutely false: Lenski's E.Coli bacteria study does precisely that.
"Therefore the term "MIRACLE" is highly appropriate when dealing with evolutionary explanations."
No it isn't.
To have a miracle, first you need a scientific law, and then you need that law to be broken.
For example 'Every action has an equal and opposite reaction'. Then find an example of this law being violated with absolutely nothing to explain it besides perhaps someone summoning the powers of a supernatural deity, and THEN you would have a miracle!
You seem to be saying that when ever we apply deductive logic to try to solve a mystery we are invoking miracles. Which is an absolute nonsense.
Eocene: Undirected, impersonal, purposeless processes do not adapt and function and no amount of hijacking intelligent designing concepts in any experiment is ever going to satisfy questions of that precious #1 on the list of your articles of faith, namely, "No Intelligence Allowed".
ReplyDeleteI'd point out this isn't an argument either. It's a rant. And a misrepresentation, at that.
For example, as for "No Intelligence Allowed", I'd again point that it's logically possible that some highly advanced intelligent designer could have miraculously and intentionally flipped some "bit" in the genome to give us exactly five fingers, rather than four or six that would have naturally evolved. We'd never be the wiser. We cannot rule this out with 100% certainty.
But this isn't unique to biology. It's the same with all fields of science. So, it would seem you're rant is concerned with some other conceived problem with evolutionary theory.
Eocene: Abiogenesis and the RNA-Fairytale world also never deal with the information contained in the actual RNA. Find the origin of the information of those codes and from that point you can start to talk guided-directed evolution.
ReplyDeleteEocene,
You're merely pushed the food around on your plate, then claiming you've ate it.
Where did the knowledge of how to create the designer come from? Do designers spontaneously appear out of nothing? Where did the knowledge the designer used to create each species come from. Did it appear out of nothing as well?
Your whole unexplainable designer fairytale world never explains with how this knowledge was created in the first place.
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteWhether it was strictly via natural means as the evolutionists mandate, or by miracle as creationists say, or some combination, or something else, I don't know. I tend not to have a strong opinion where not warranted.
Given that you've already stated that evolution allows for anything but the truth, it would seem that your answer above is disingenious.
Ritchie:""The genetic information found in DNA and for that matter codes of any kind have never once been shown to emerge from lifeless, purposeless, unintelligent evolutionary processes."
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely false: Lenski's E.Coli bacteria study does precisely that."
Sure? Can you explain how?
Blas -
ReplyDeleteHow much detail would you like me to go into?
A sample of E.Coli was divided into a dozen samples, and each put through a repeated process of 'boom and bust'. Though each sample evolved in different ways, one sample was particularly interesting, in that it evolved the ability to metabolize citrate - a completely novel invention for the bacteria.
A spontaneous, and importantly, meticulously documented emergence of new information in the DNA of E.Coli.
Ritchie:"in that it evolved the ability to metabolize citrate - a completely novel invention for the bacteria."
ReplyDeleteYou have to studie a little of microbiology before you post. E. Coli can metabolize citrate, but only in absence of glucose. In the Lenski´s experiment one of the mutants loosed the regulation that do not allow E Coli to use Citrate in the presence of gluose. No new information, loose of it.
Blas -
ReplyDelete"E. Coli can metabolize citrate, but only in absence of glucose."
Can it? Can you source that please?
And even if it can, the ability to metabolize citrate in the presence of glucose is an increase in information.
Blas: You have to studie a little of microbiology before you post. E. Coli can metabolize citrate, but only in absence of glucose.
ReplyDeleteWild E. coli can't absorb citrate in oxic conditions, regardless of the presence of glucose.
Ritchie:"And even if it can, the ability to metabolize citrate in the presence of glucose is an increase in information."
ReplyDeleteIt will be better you read biochemistry too Ritchie, it is not an increase information, is the loose of a regulation system that allows the E. Coli to eat the most convenient meal in each situation.
Blas said...
ReplyDeleteIt will be better you read biochemistry too Ritchie, it is not an increase information, is the loose of a regulation system that allows the E. Coli to eat the most convenient meal in each situation.
How do you measure the 'information' in a genome to tell if if gained or lost information?
How would you recognize a gain in information if it happened?
Blas: You have to studie a little of microbiology before you post.
ReplyDeleteAnd you'll have to give up your misconceptions of evolutionary theory before you dismiss it. For example….
Blas: In the Lenski´s experiment one of the mutants loosed the regulation that do not allow E Coli to use Citrate in the presence of gluose. No new information, loose of it.
This is yet another example of how one cannot interpret observations without first putting them in an explanatory framework.
Here, you seem to have framed the experiment as if E Coli were intentionally designed not to metabolize citrate in the presence of glucose. Therefore, when the mutation occurred you perceived it as a loss of information.
However, I'm suggesting that the genome is a biological replicator. Its contents represent the knowledge of how to cause it's environment to replicate itself.
We can use a cooking recipe as an analogy. The absences of a particular step doesn't necessarily represent the loss of information. It's represents knowledge of how to make a different particular dish. In fact, when making a new dish, we could consider the knowledge to leave out a particular step an increase in knowledge. Right?
That is, we could say that a particular dish was improved by leaving out a step represents new knowledge.
In the same sense, we can say the mutation resulted in the knowledge of how to metabolize citrate. This, in turn, represents knowledge of how to cause a genome's environment to replicate it.
Blas -
ReplyDelete"It will be better you read biochemistry too Ritchie, it is not an increase information, is the loose of a regulation system that allows the E. Coli to eat the most convenient meal in each situation."
That makes no sense to me. The bacteria gained an ability they previously lacked. That is not a loss, it is a gain.
Ritchie said...
ReplyDeleteBlas -
"It will be better you read biochemistry too Ritchie, it is not an increase information, is the loose of a regulation system that allows the E. Coli to eat the most convenient meal in each situation."
That makes no sense to me. The bacteria gained an ability they previously lacked. That is not a loss, it is a gain.
Silly evo, the E Coli obviously lost the ability to not digest citrate.
See, you just have to think like a Creationist!
Blas: It will be better you read biochemistry too Ritchie, it is not an increase information, is the loose of a regulation system that allows the E. Coli to eat the most convenient meal in each situation.
ReplyDeleteExcept that's not the case. The original bacteria could not utilize citrate, and if citrate were the only available food source, they would have all died, leaving no progeny. It took specific, random mutations for any of the bacteria to acquire the ability to metabolize citrate in oxic conditions.
(It has nothing to do with glucose, except that the Lenski experiment used a mixture rich in citrate and poor in glucose. That way the bacteria could live and divide, but if a strain developed that could utilize citrate, it would be positively selected.)
Zach:"Except that's not the case. The original bacteria could not utilize citrate, and if citrate were the only available food source, they would have all died, leaving no progeny. It took specific, random mutations for any of the bacteria to acquire the ability to metabolize citrate in oxic conditions. "
ReplyDeleteAny aerobic life can use citrate, because citrate is part of the Krebs cycle. The only restriction you have is bring the citrate in the Krebs cycle zone of the cell. For that you need a membrane transporter. E. Coli already has the transporter of citrate, many E. Coli strands are Cit+ but they use it only in certain conditions.
Ritchie:"That makes no sense to me. The bacteria gained an ability they previously lacked. That is not a loss, it is a gain."
ReplyDeleteIf it is a gain, why when reverted the condition the original strain prevails?
Scitt:"In the same sense, we can say the mutation resulted in the knowledge of how to metabolize citrate. This, in turn, represents knowledge of how to cause a genome's environment to replicate it."
ReplyDeleteNo, the mutation resulted in the use of citrate in condition where usually the E. Coli wouldn´t use it. E Coli uses citrate when it matters, they have all the Krebs cycle. What the mutation did was the lost of the regulation that prevent the use of citrate in the presence of glucose.
Blas: Any aerobic life can use citrate, because citrate is part of the Krebs cycle. The only restriction you have is bring the citrate in the Krebs cycle zone of the cell.
ReplyDeleteWild E. coli can't utilize citrate because it can't bring it across its membrane in oxic conditions. It's like saying you can digest a cow, but can't ingest it because you can't swallow it whole (no teeth). Ingestion is the new characteristic, not digestion.
(You understand it has nothing to do with the presence of glucose?)
Blas: E Coli uses citrate when it matters, they have all the Krebs cycle.
ReplyDeleteNo. They die without glucose. Only after generations in a glucose-poor, citrate-rich environment do the necessary mutations occur to allow citrate ingestion, and not always even then. The mutations are random.
Blas: What the mutation did was the lost of the regulation that prevent the use of citrate in the presence of glucose.
In the presence of *oxygen*, not glucose. The experiment wouldn't haven't worked otherwise. Think about it.
Blas: What the mutation did was the lost of the regulation that prevent the use of citrate in the presence of glucose.
ReplyDeleteEven if this was the case, you still appear to be stuck on the assumption that the absence of this regulation represents "old" information or "less" information. But this isn't assumption isn't supported by mere empirical observations. Nor is it something you can supposedly know as the designer is either abstract or unknowable.
Rather, you had to first put observations of the experiment into a specific theoretical framework before this could occur.
Again, if someone leaves out a particular ingredient or step in a recipe, they could end up with a very different dish, such as a cake rather than a cookie, etc. This is because the step or ingredient would no longer have an effect the dish.
In other words, knowledge of how to prepare a particular dish isn't only about what "things" you put in, but what "thinks" you leave out.
Nor is it clear that the regulating system evolved in some pre-coordinated way which would necessitate the lack of regulation represented "old" or "pre-existing" information.
For example, let's say I start out with a five ingredients, add a sixth, then a seventh, then an eight and ninth.
But then, after trying the dish, I decide to leave out ingredients seven and two. Is this less information? Technically, yes. But what we have a specific list of ingredients we didn't not have before, which results a specific dish. This is because our recipe now consists of ingredients 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9. This represents new knowledge of how to make a different dish.
Thorton,
ReplyDelete"told you one peak was actually the sculpture of a space alien."
There are a number of possible factors at play here. First, you're just blowing smoke about the alien peak. We know this to be true and we know blowing smoke is a habit of yours.
However, just for arguments sake lets assume there is a peak which is an alien sculpture. You're claiming to have knowledge of this peak as you have claimed it does exist. Have you been told it exists but have not seen it or any evidence which supports its existence and only taking it on faith? Or have you actually witnessed this peak and have first hand proof that it is indeed an alien sculpture. Either way evidence of some nature must exist or you believe it exists, which proves to your satisfaction that this alien peak exists. As a matter of logic this evidence must be of such a nature that it makes this peak different from all the others. So in fact you, by claiming to have knowledge of the existence of this peak are in fact claiming to have knowledge of the existence of the evidence and information which proves this peak unique.
When you ask Red Reader how he would find evidence for the existence of this peak you are doing so while possessing this very knowledge. If he was unable to provide this evidence would you have the scholastic honesty to share your knowledge with him?
However, if you do not possess this knowledge and are asking Red Reader to provide an explanation as to how he would find that which does not exist you're simply floating a red herring argument. Again we both know this is what you're doing and that this too is a habit of yours.
Gerry said...
ReplyDeleteThorton: "told you one peak was actually the sculpture of a space alien."
However, just for arguments sake lets assume there is a peak which is an alien sculpture. You're claiming to have knowledge of this peak as you have claimed it does exist. Have you been told it exists but have not seen it or any evidence which supports its existence and only taking it on faith? Or have you actually witnessed this peak and have first hand proof that it is indeed an alien sculpture. Either way evidence of some nature must exist or you believe it exists, which proves to your satisfaction that this alien peak exists. As a matter of logic this evidence must be of such a nature that it makes this peak different from all the others. So in fact you, by claiming to have knowledge of the existence of this peak are in fact claiming to have knowledge of the existence of the evidence and information which proves this peak unique.
Are you daft? In my example of course I have prior external knowledge. The whole point is, IDiots claim to be able to detect design without any prior external knowledge.
All I'm asking for is the objective method for doing so. If you or Red Reader can't do it, just say you can't and we're done.
BTW, can you tell me the CSI value of Mt. Rushmore, or at least tell me how to calculate it? No one else in the ID camp has been able to.
Thorton,
ReplyDelete"Are you daft?"
No, but apparently you are, why else would you think a red herring argument like an alien sculpted mountain peak was a sound analogy to the readily apparent design found in biological life. The two are not comparable at all. You're trying to draw a parallel between something which does not exist, or at least is not known to exist, and that which can be observed by anyone.
"IDiots claim to be able to detect design without any prior knowledge."
On what basis do you say they do not have prior knowledge? You say you have prior knowledge in your example. How did you acquire that knowledge? Was it observation or are you accepting what you've been told? On what basis should we trust your claims? Do you know of a standard by which alien sculpted peaks are detected? What constitutes this standard? How do you measure this phenomenon? What calculation method do you use to differentiate between natural peaks and alien peaks? If you have answers to these questions, provide them, if you don't then we're done.
"The CSI value of Mt. Rushmore,,,"
As far as I know there is no 'CSI value' standard which can be applied. But if you're asking can we show that complex, specified information has been applied to Mt. Rushmore, that is no problem at all. Obviously specific information is applied or the faces would all look the same, or look like nothing at all. As they do not look the same and they do not look like nothing at all, specified information is in play. To argue otherwise is palpable nonsense and equivalent to spitting into the wind.
You're trying to draw a parallel between something which does not exist, or at least is not known to exist, and that which can be observed by anyone.
ReplyDeleteIt's called a thought experiment, and it's an extremely useful tool that scientists use all the time. Well, scientists that are willing to at least attempt to actually understand things that is. The idea is to think of a scenario in which the relevant concepts are relatively isolated and think through the logical consequences. In the vast majority of cases such scenarios do not, and in many cases cannot actually exist. Like Einstein imagining riding a light beam, which is one of the main thought experiments that led him to the theory of relativity.
On the other hand, if your goal is to make damn sure that you don't understand a thing, then making sure that you never imagine anything that you can't directly experience yourself is a good start.
Gerry said...
ReplyDeleteT: "Are you daft?"
No, but apparently you are, why else would you think a red herring argument like an alien sculpted mountain peak was a sound analogy to the readily apparent design found in biological life.
What makes it readily apparent? No one in the scientific community has seen it, and they've been looking closely for 150+ YEARS.
You don't have an objective way to determine intelligent design in biological objects. You've got your layman's personal incredulity, and that just ain't gonna cut it.
T: "IDiots claim to be able to detect design without any prior knowledge."
On what basis do you say they do not have prior knowledge? You say you have prior knowledge in your example. How did you acquire that knowledge? Was it observation or are you accepting what you've been told? On what basis should we trust your claims? Do you know of a standard by which alien sculpted peaks are detected? What constitutes this standard? How do you measure this phenomenon?
LOL! It's a freakin' thought exercise for FSM sake. How do you detect intelligent design in an object with no prior external knowledge. You can't do it, no matter how daft you are.
T: "The CSI value of Mt. Rushmore..."
As far as I know there is no 'CSI value' standard which can be applied. But if you're asking can we show that complex, specified information has been applied to Mt. Rushmore, that is no problem at all. Obviously specific information is applied or the faces would all look the same, or look like nothing at all.
You keep saying 'obviously' but it's only obvious to you because you've seen human faces before. Where have you seen known intelligently designed life forms before?
As they do not look the same and they do not look like nothing at all, specified information is in play.
Double LOL! You can't compute a CSI value, you can't even provide a general methodology for determining such a parameter, but you're sure it's just chock-ful-o CSI. Is there a special IDiot school where you can learn this technique of "I know CSI when I see it"? Or is it an innate skill?
If it's not objectively determined, it's not science. It's just your wishful thinking.
Thorton,
ReplyDelete"How do you detect intelligent design in an object with no prior external knowledge."
How do you detect design in a building. Do you assume the building comes about by chance up until you gain prior knowledge of it or does it imply design by its existence. In your line of reasoning some buildings, or any other object for that matter could just spring into existence and could only be proven to have been designed upon gaining prior knowledge of that building or object. You can't argue past experience tells you buildings are designed and therefore you can apply that as prior external knowledge. That is simply the argument from ID, prior experience tells us complex objects require intelligent input. You deny this as a valid argument and therefore are a hypocrite to use it in defense of buildings not springing into existence.
"Double LOL! You can't..."
Who says you can't? You.
If you think Mt. Rushmore came about by some other way than intelligent, complex, specified means let's hear it. If you can't explain it as a natural phenomenon which occurred without specified information then enjoy dining on your own spit.
You're typical of evolutionists, you feel you can demand from others standards which you cannot yourself achieve. You cannot possibly provide for evolution the standards which you demand from ID. I asked you to do so for your infantile mountain peak story and you're incapable of doing so and have admitted such in this post. If you can't do it for your alien sculpture you have no right to demand such from any one else.
"If it's not objectively determined, it's not science."
Tell me, how has the so-called evolution of the whale been objectively determined? Has it been tested? Has it been observed? Has it been repeated? No, and therefore it has not been objectively determined and is not science, but only wishful thinking. You just keep hoisting yourself on your own petard. If you want to take some classes on anything, I would suggest some basic critical thinking and analysis courses would be in order. Your abilities in this area are beyond woeful. I should be the one laughing, and I would if it wasn't so sad.
Gerry said...
ReplyDeleteThorton,
"How do you detect intelligent design in an object with no prior external knowledge."
How do you detect design in a building. Do you assume the building comes about by chance up until you gain prior knowledge of it or does it imply design by its existence.
I can recognize design in a building because I have previous knowledge of other human designed buildings, and building techniques, and materials.
Where do you get your previous knowledge of intelligently designed life forms?
If you think Mt. Rushmore came about by some other way than intelligent, complex, specified means let's hear it.
LOL! That made my night. You really think the whole point of the thought exercise was to argue Mt. Rushmore wasn't human designed??? Even though I guessed on the low end, seems I still severely overestimated your intelligence.
Tell me, how has the so-called evolution of the whale been objectively determined? Has it been tested? Has it been observed? Has it been repeated?
Anyone can make objective measurements of the fossils and determine the smooth transitions of various features over time. Anyone can do objective radiometric dating and get the same ages. Anyone can do objective genetic studies and get the same objectively determined best fit phylogenetic tree. All of the above evidence has been tested, observed, and repeated.
BTW, with all that blustering you still keep avoiding the question:
"How do you detect intelligent design in an object with no prior external knowledge."
Until you IDiots can come up with an objective method you'll always be considered religious loonies.
Tell me how to objectively calculate CSI in an object, any object.
Gerry said...
ReplyDeleteThat is simply the argument from ID, prior experience tells us complex objects require intelligent input.
That's where you are dead wrong. It is a demonstrable fact that iterative feedback processes with results undergoing differential selection and retaining heritable traits can and do produce complex results, including 'irreducibly complex' structures. Mere complexity is therefore not a 100% indicator of intelligent purposeful design. And no, modeling the processes on a computer doesn't 'smuggle in' intelligence.
You IDiots can't even get basic logic right:
Water flowing from a garden hose always makes the ground wet, but wet ground doesn't always indicate water from a hose. Wet ground could be from natural rain.
Intelligent designers make complex things, but complex things don't always indicate an intelligent designer. Observed natural processes make complex things too.
Please, learn at least that simple bit of logic.
Thorton,
ReplyDelete"I can recognize buildings because I have previous knowledge of other human designed buildings,..."
You just don't get it do you?
Your argument is that it is impossible to detect intelligence in a design without prior knowledge of the intelligence involved in that design or previous experience of the object in question. That is palpable nonsense. Design is detectable regardless of whether or not you have knowledge of the designer or previous experience with the object in question. For example, if this was not true in what way would SETI hope to achieve any success? The whole presumption of SETI is the belief that complex, specified information laden patterns are detectable and as such alien patterns, with which we have no previous experience and of which we possess no knowledge, would also be detectable. In your line of reasoning this would be impossible.
"That made my night."
I'm afraid this only demonstrates the low level of your intelligence. The question wasn't whether or not Mt. Rushmore was human designed, but whether specified information was involved, detectable and quantifiable. You said it was impossible to provide a CSI standard for Mt. Rushmore. I demonstrated it was. The simple fact the individual faces differed and are recognizable as specific individuals provides a measurable pattern of CSI. If no specified, complex information was involved in its production or its results were unmeasurable, this would not be the case.
"Objective measurement of the fossils..."
When it comes to fossils the only objective fact is that you have a dead animal, after that everything is 100% subjective and influenced by the observer's bias. To try and argue for the evolution of any animal from fossil evidence is completely pointless as all the evidence provided by fossils is subject to interpretation by the observer. Nothing is certain.
"That's where you are dead wrong."
No, wet ground does not always indicate a hose. But it sometimes does and that is where the flaw lays in your logic. We know from experience wet ground may have more than one cause. We do not know from experience that complex designs arise without a designer, your appeals to the contrary notwithstanding. You assume and assert complex designs arise by chance, but you can't give me an example of a complex object which you know with 100% certainty arose without a designer.
I know you believe you're a very intelligent fellow, sadly, that is simply untrue. Your arguments are sophomoric and your logic is non-existent. You simply spout rhetoric from wikipedia, Talkorigins and other similar sites. You demonstrate no understanding of the processes of critical analysis and critical thinking. I don't feel like wasting my time anymore with your infantile attempts at presenting a case for evolution. I'm sure you will reply with all kinds of LOLs and other juvenile comments about my lack of intelligence as that is your style. Ad hominem arguments are your only tool. Take care and please read something worthwhile once in a while.
Gerry: For example, if this was not true in what way would SETI hope to achieve any success? The whole presumption of SETI is the belief that complex, specified information laden patterns are detectable and as such alien patterns, with which we have no previous experience and of which we possess no knowledge, would also be detectable.
ReplyDeleteThat is incorrect. SETI attempts to detect signals, such as narrow-band radio transmissions that humans use to solve the problem of communications in a noisy, natural radio environment, particularly those signals that exhibit a Doppler Effect associated with planets orbiting other stars, because humans evolved on such a planet.
http://www.seti.org/about-us/faq#a3
Gerry: The question wasn't whether or not Mt. Rushmore was human designed, but whether specified information was involved, detectable and quantifiable.
The specification depends on your background knowledge of humans. For instance, you might not recognize the monumental sculture of Xotz of Xeon.
http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/966/45006531.JPG
Gerry: The simple fact the individual faces differed and are recognizable as specific individuals provides a measurable pattern of CSI.
Right. So you have a planet inhabited by a peculiar species of technological apes that is known to build and sculpt stone into their own shapes. We even have pictures of the ape creatures.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/rushmore/peopleevents/e_carving.html
Gerry: When it comes to fossils the only objective fact is that you have a dead animal, after that everything is 100% subjective and influenced by the observer's bias.
Um, no. Not "everything" is subjective. Dinosaurs really did once roam the Earth. Pretending otherwise won't convince anyone. Any child can see the fossils in a museum.
Gerry said...
ReplyDeleteDesign is detectable regardless of whether or not you have knowledge of the designer or previous experience with the object in question.
Yet you can't give an objective method for doing so, despite repeated requests. It always comes back to your subjective "I know design when I see it!". Science FAIL.
For example, if this was not true in what way would SETI hope to achieve any success?
SETI is looking for electromagnetic radiation modulation patters of the type known to be produced by humans. This is based on the knowledge that there are only a finite number of ways to modulate EM, and that other life forms would be constrained by the same physics. So once again, we have a previously known example to search for. FAIL again there Gerry.
We do not know from experience that complex designs arise without a designer, your appeals to the contrary notwithstanding.
Yes, we do know. There is a whole technical field - genetic algorithms - based on the fact that iterative feedback processes with selection and produce complexity.
You said it was impossible to provide a CSI standard for Mt. Rushmore. I demonstrated it was.
Sorry, you didn't. You didn't explain how to objectively measure the CSI or give a measured CSI value. You just don't understand this science stuff at all, do you?
I don't feel like wasting my time anymore with your infantile attempts at presenting a case for evolution.
And yet another blustering scientifically illiterate Creationist can't deal with reality, heads for the door.
Gerry said...
ReplyDeleteTake care and please read something worthwhile once in a while.
One last thing I should point out to you before you flounce: Your behavior on this thread has been 100% representative of the entire IDC community. When the scientific community has presented the IDC leadership with the same list of fatal flaws that I showed to you here, has the IDC community rolled up their sleeves and gotten to work on corrections? Heck no. All we get is lots more empty bluster in the form of incestuous web sites like Dembski's UncommonlyDense, or popular press books by Behe and Wells, or propaganda moves filled with lies like EXPELLED.
That's why the scientific community views the Intelligent Design Creationism movement with such disdain. IDC isn't a scientific movement, it does no scientific research, it produces no scientific results. IDC is purely a political movement designed to dishonestly sneak Christian Creationism back into public school science classes, nothing more.
Zachriel,
ReplyDelete"That is incorrect."
No, I'm quite correct. SETI assumes that intelligent life outside of our experience would produce patterns in communication which would be recognizable to us as such. If Thorton's idea was correct we would never be able to learn anything as we would never be able to discern unknown concepts without prior knowledge of or experience with that concept. That type of reasoning is simply idiotic and totally without evidential support. It's simply more of Thorton's idiotic attempts to discredit any facts he finds unsettling to his worldview. In addition such a claim is not scientific in nature but rather philosophical.
"You might not recognize the monumental sculture (sic) of Xotz of Xeon."
Why don't you demonstrate his existence first and then we will make that judgment. Of course one would not recognize that which does not exist. Simply making up silly names and then claiming I would not recognize said object or person when I see it or them is not logical argumentation. It's simply infantile and does nothing to defend your case?
"We even have pictures of the ape creatures."
I really don't know what you think this proves. It certainly does nothing to help your argument, it only reinforces mine. Perhaps you should try again.
"Um, not everything is subjective."
Try a little mature reasoning and application of logic in your responses. The truth is a fossil is only proof of a dead animal, from which it follows logically that that the same animal was once alive. Therefore you have not demonstrated that my statement was wrong.
Thorton,
ReplyDelete"Sorry you didn't."
The fact is Thorton, it would not matter what was presented to you as you would simply wave your hands and dismiss it. You're not interested in any kind of dialogue, your only intent is to push your view and ridicule anyone who disagrees with you. You have not once in all the time I've followed this blog presented a scientific argument. You've simply presented rhetoric and bluster. You demand proof for their position from others but are totally incapable of presenting one iota of proof for yours.
When proof and sound logical arguments are presented to you your response is one of name calling and insults. You're simply not as intelligent as you think, but you've convinced yourself otherwise and think that gives you the right to be rude and disrespectful of other positions with which you disagree. It does not.
I pity people like you. Your narrow minded view of life and your utter disrespect for the views of others will lead only to misery. I tried to carry on a civil and logical debate with you but you refused to do so. I presented sound logical arguments which you refused to answer in a respectful way. Your continued response was to say I failed to meet what you set as the standard. Well, this may come as a shock but you're not the one who sets the standards.
As for your argument that I failed to meet your requirements for the CSI content of Mt. Rushmore I will simply put the onus back on you. Why don't you conclusively and logically demonstrate that no such CSI standard can be formulated. To do so would require more than your assertions it cannot be done or the making up of mythical mountain sculptures as examples. Due to the fact you claim to be so highly intelligent this should be no problem for you. So go ahead, prove to everyone it's impossible to recognize design without having prior knowledge or experience with the design in question. I won't be holding my breath.
As for your comments regards people who lean to ID and creation, this again demonstrates your utter disrespect for anyone who opposes you. It's been my experience here that those who hold to those views are the ones presenting sound, logical arguments. They are not the one who resort to name calling, insults and ad hominem arguments. That would be you. Why are ID and creation sites incestuous and evolution sites are not? The answer is quite simple. This is just more of your mean spirited rhetoric.
I will no longer respond to your comments. I will answer people such as Zachriel and others who maintain a standard of civil discourse. People who do not see themselves as superior to others and feel they have the right to call others liars and idiots with pus for brains. You've only managed to show yourself as a weak minded pseudo intellectual, capable of spewing only rhetoric and completely incapable of applying sound reasoning or displaying respect for the opinions and beliefs of others.
Gerry: No, I'm quite correct. SETI assumes that intelligent life outside of our experience would produce patterns in communication which would be recognizable to us as such.
ReplyDeleteYes, but what you said is that it would consist of "complex, specified information laden patterns." In fact, SETI primarily consists of looking for simple patterns, such as narrow-band radio signals, a simple physical solution to being heard in a noisy natural radio environment.
Zachriel: You might not recognize the monumental scul{p}ture of Xotz of Xeon.
Gerry: Simply making up silly names and then claiming I would not recognize said object or person when I see it or them is not logical argumentation.
You demonstrate the point. "Xotz" is a stone impression of an organism. You just didn't recognize it as such.
http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/966/45006531.JPG
Zachriel: We even have pictures of the ape creatures.
Gerry: I really don't know what you think this proves.
An investigator with no knowledge of humans sees a peculiar organism building stone monuments in their own images. He looks at Mount Rushmore, studies the chisel marks and concludes it is consistent with having been constructed by these ape creatures. That's how investigators actually work, by connecting the artifact to the art and to the artisan.
Gerry: When it comes to fossils the only objective fact is that you have a dead animal, after that everything is 100% subjective and influenced by the observer's bias.
Zachriel: Um, not everything is subjective.
Gerry: The truth is a fossil is only proof of a dead animal, from which it follows logically that that the same animal was once alive.
That's a start. Being an animal that means it eats other organisms for energy. That's already more information than it just being alive. You can probably determine how it moved, possibly its environment. If it has teeth, you can determine whether it ate plants or animals. From comparative anatomy, you can determine how it reproduced, and possibly other behavioral characteristics. For instance, from fossil nests, it's been determined that some dinosaurs raised their young in colonies.
Gerry said...
ReplyDeleteYou have not once in all the time I've followed this blog presented a scientific argument.
What you really mean is not once have you been able to follow the scientific papers and evidence I've presented. But I understand your response. Got to protect your fragile ego somehow.
I presented sound logical arguments which you refused to answer in a respectful way.
Actually you didn't. You presented the same old tired IDC arguments from personal incredulity (it LOOKS designed to me, so it must BE designed!!) , then got your panties in a bunch when I pointed out the flaws.
As for your argument that I failed to meet your requirements for the CSI content of Mt. Rushmore I will simply put the onus back on you. Why don't you conclusively and logically demonstrate that no such CSI standard can be formulated.
Sorry, but I'm not the one claiming it can. It's your claim, you support it. So far you and everyone else in the IDC community have failed miserably. Sadly for you, science doesn't have affirmative action programs for stupid unsupported ideas like IDC.
So go ahead, prove to everyone it's impossible to recognize design without having prior knowledge or experience with the design in question. I won't be holding my breath.
OK, let's try a thought experiment. Say I have access to a StarTrek type transporter machine that can scan / map / create objects perfectly. You bring me a non-designed object, say a rock you found. I use my machine to make a designed copy, identical down to the last quark.
I now place the two objects before you and ask you to tell which one is natural and which one I created through intelligent design processes. You can't do it just from the objects themselves. You'll need some outside information (like watching me bring my object in) to tell.
Feel free to offer a counterargument for once instead of just blustering about how your IDC nonsense doesn't get any respect.
Zachriel,
ReplyDelete"You just didn't recognize it as such."
On what basis do you come to that conclusion? What you presented was obviously an impression of something, that is plain to all. However, saying I would not recognize Xotz is a fallacious argument as you did not present Xotz, you simply showed a fossil. This is not logical argumentation, it's silliness.
"An investigator with no knowledge of humans..."
An investigator would not need to have knowledge of humans to determine Mt. Rushmore was the result of specified, applied information. You're simply asserting the investigator would need to see the 'apes' going about their work. Assertions are not proof. How can you prove scientifically that the investigator would need to experience the 'apes' at work to determine intelligent input? By making this statement you're claiming knowledge of the investigator. How have you come by this knowledge? You're not making scientific claims you're making metaphysical claims. I put to you the same problem I put to Thorton, prove scientifically this investigator would absolutely require previous knowledge and experience with the 'apes' to come to his conclusion of intelligent input.
Thorton has made an attempt to answer my question, but again he dreams up a just so fairy tale and calls it an answer. The problem is not one of determining a copy from an original, it's a question of whether you can determine intelligent input in an object without prior knowledge. Thorton's attempt at an argument informs me that one is a copy while the other is original. I would not need that prior knowledge to come to that conclusion as randomly created rocks would not look exactly alike. So the fact they do look exactly alike would tell me one is a copy without having prior knowledge it was copied.
Thought experiments are fine until they are actually put to the test. When Thorton can produce such a rock as he imagines we will see if I can determine copy from original. Until he does he is simply blowing smoke which is in no way a scientific argument. His 'superior intellect" has failed him once more.
"That's a start."
Yes, you can determine such things from fossils, but even most of the things you list are subjective in nature as they cannot be known for sure. Some turtles for example lay their eggs in groups but do nothing to attend to them when they hatch. So simply finding a clump of nests does not conclusively prove that there were organized colonies for raising the young.
Where fossil interpretation becomes totally subjective is when you begin to present as fact things which cannot possibly be known from the fossil. Things such as hunting patterns if it happens to be a predator. In fact labeling a fossil as a predator is somewhat subjective in itself, but I'll grant that you can make a sound case for that fact from the fossil. But you cannot know objectively that the creature hunted in packs for example. Or that it used diversionary tactics to fool its prey. And obviously you cannot know from the fossil that it was a so-called transitionary species. You can only know this creature was once alive and now it's dead.
Gerry said...
ReplyDeleteThorton has made an attempt to answer my question, but again he dreams up a just so fairy tale and calls it an answer. The problem is not one of determining a copy from an original, it's a question of whether you can determine intelligent input in an object without prior knowledge. Thorton's attempt at an argument informs me that one is a copy while the other is original. I would not need that prior knowledge to come to that conclusion as randomly created rocks would not look exactly alike. So the fact they do look exactly alike would tell me one is a copy without having prior knowledge it was copied.
Sorry Gerry but you dodged the question. The issue isn't that one is designed, I told you up front one is designed. Your task is to determine which one of the two is the designed one, and do so just by examining the objects themselves. You can't do it.
Suppose I offered you just one of the rocks and asked if it was designed or natural. You couldn't tell me then either.
You can't identify 'design' without some external reference to compare to.
Thought experiments are fine until they are actually put to the test. When Thorton can produce such a rock as he imagines we will see if I can determine copy from original. Until he does he is simply blowing smoke which is in no way a scientific argument. His 'superior intellect" has failed him once more.
OK, here's a real world example. These rocks include one that is a human-made neolithic tool. Use your CSI meter and tell me which one it is, and how you made the determination.
Which one is designed?
Gerry: On what basis do you come to that conclusion?
ReplyDeleteYou were given an opportunity to study the lith, but showed no recognition whatsoever. Conversely, it is the familiarity with ape-creatures that allows you to recognize the features of Mount Rushmore.
Gerry: An investigator would not need to have knowledge of humans to determine Mt. Rushmore was the result of specified, applied information.
You were unable to recognize the lith of Xotz.
Gerry: By making this statement you're claiming knowledge of the investigator.
Because that's how known scientific investigators work. They propose and test hypotheses.
Gerry: I put to you the same problem I put to Thorton, prove scientifically this investigator would absolutely require previous knowledge and experience with the 'apes' to come to his conclusion of intelligent input.
Because for it to be scientifically founded, the hypothesis has to relate the supposed artifact to the reputed artisan and its art, because that is what the claim *entails*.
Gerry: Some turtles for example lay their eggs in groups but do nothing to attend to them when they hatch.
You had said you couldn't tell anything except that they were alive. Now you admit we can tell that they laid eggs in groups.
In any case, when you find youngster Maiasaurs with undeveloped bones in the nest, it means they are being fed.
http://www.amazon.com/Digging-Dinosaurs-Search-Unraveled-Mystery/dp/0060973145
Zachriel,
ReplyDelete"You were given the opportunity,... but showed no recognition whatsoever."
This is a prime example of how you think as an evolutionist. You draw a conclusion based on unknowable data. You have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not I had any recognition of the image, that is pure assumption on your part. You claim knowledge you have no way of possessing.
"You were unable to recognize the lith of Xotz."
As the 'lith of Xotz' does not exist how do suppose I should recognize it? Now, if you're claiming I did not recognize this image as something other than a randomly formed rock you're claiming to possess knowledge you simply do not have and have no way of acquiring.
"Because that's how known scientific investigators work..."
The problem you have is you do not know that about this investigator, you're simply assuming that to be the case. By your own argument he has no knowledge of humans so to make this claim you would have to have knowledge of him and how he investigates. How would you have that knowledge? As this fanciful little argument is nothing more than imaginary ramblings and does not constitute science it fails as proof for your position.
"Relate the supposed artifact to the reputed artisan and its art."
Relating the artisan to his art is completely irrelevant to the process of determining intelligent input. One can recognize this factor with no knowledge whatsoever of the creator of the art. I don't have to know the identity of the artist to simply recognize an object as a painting.
"Now you admit they laid eggs in groups."
That is information gleaned from the fossil eggs, not the animal. The grouping of eggs alone is not proof of organized nurseries.
"When you find youngster Malasuars..."
Granted, that would be a reasonable conclusion, but it remains it cannot be known as an objective fact. To be known as objective fact you would require considerably more evidence. Evidence which you cannot acquire at this stage. So you're left with conjecture only.
Gerry: That is information gleaned from the fossil eggs, not the animal. The grouping of eggs alone is not proof of organized nurseries.
ReplyDeleteSigh. Originally you said we can't know anything about them other than they are alive. In this case, we know Maiasaurs ate plants, mated and laid eggs in nests. We also know that their young remained and grew in their nests after hatching until their bones developed, somehow acquiring food.
Here's a couple of more scientifically valid statements: Dinosaurs roamed. Mammoths nursed.
Gerry: This is a prime example of how you think as an evolutionist. You draw a conclusion based on unknowable data.
That's funny in light of your previous comments. Let's back up.
Gerry: An investigator would not need to have knowledge of humans to determine Mt. Rushmore was the result of specified, applied information.
Using Mount Rushmore as an example, and being completely ignorant, show us how you would reach your design conclusion.
Gerry said...
ReplyDeleteAs the 'lith of Xotz' does not exist how do suppose I should recognize it? Now, if you're claiming I did not recognize this image as something other than a randomly formed rock you're claiming to possess knowledge you simply do not have and have no way of acquiring.
LOL! So you can only detect design if someone tells you ahead of time about the design. Classic. I though the whole point of CSI that you can detect design with no prior knowledge of the object.
As 'intelligently designed life' is not known to exist how do suppose science should recognize it? Now, if you're claiming science did not recognize the phenomenon as something other than naturally occurring biological life you're claiming to possess knowledge you simply do not have and have no way of acquiring.
Same thing Gerry, same thing. Either you can apply your CSI design detection to objects like the lith or Mt. Rushmore, or you can't.
You can't identify 'design' without some external reference to compare to.
Just as I've been explaining to you all along.
BTW, how are coming with identifying the neolithic stone tool? Didn't you say you could identify a real world example of design?
Zachriel,
ReplyDelete"Sigh."
Originally you were only talking about a single fossil, not a collection of fossils. From a single animal fossil the only thing we can know for sure is the animal is dead, beyond that with very few exceptions everything is conjecture. From the egg nests we can learn different factors but again most of it is conjecture. You're still only able to subjectively state the Malasuars were cared for. It may have been they were left on their own to develop and were intended to survive on body resources until they could fend for themselves. These simply are facts you cannot know for sure when you're dealing with past events.
"Dinosaurs roamed."
By dinosaurs roaming do you mean their lifestyle consisted of roaming within territorial boundaries? If that is what you're saying you cannot possibly know that to be an objective fact
"Using Mt. Rushmore..."
It was you and Thorton who brought up Mt. Rushmore or do you forget the web address you sent me in an attempt to prove your case? As for my ignorance, are you now going to degenerate into name calling and ad hominem arguments? Doing so is a sure sign of a failed argument. That's Thorton's methodology, I hope you do not emulate him.
I now refuse to respond to his comments because of his attitude. He continues to post comments directed at me, but he will grow old waiting for a response. He continues to spout the same pointless rhetoric and displays a stunning inability to understand what is being said. On the other hand maybe he does understand but believes if he ignores the arguments presented to him they will somehow go away. In ether case he is infamous for his red herring replies. He firmly believes if he repeats his illogical arguments and asserts his beliefs long enough they will in time become fact. Quite pitiful really.
Anyway, please don't follow the lead of Thorton. Maintain a respectful attitude toward the beliefs of others.
Gerry: Originally you were only talking about a single fossil, not a collection of fossils. From a single animal fossil the only thing we can know for sure is the animal is dead, beyond that with very few exceptions everything is conjecture.
ReplyDeleteAgain, that is simply incorrect. This organism ate meat:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/UCMP_Trex_skull_lower_left.JPG
Gerry: From the egg nests we can learn different factors but again most of it is conjecture.
We learn the organism made nests, a complex behavior, and laid eggs.
Gerry: You're still only able to subjectively state the Malasuars were cared for. It may have been they were left on their own to develop and were intended to survive on body resources until they could fend for themselves.
Animals don't grow without food.
Gerry: By dinosaurs roaming do you mean their lifestyle consisted of roaming within territorial boundaries? If that is what you're saying you cannot possibly know that to be an objective fact.
Seriously, you don't think dinosaurs walked on their legs?
Gerry: As for my ignorance, are you now going to degenerate into name calling and ad hominem arguments?
Huh? Quite the opposite. Try to show that Mount Rushmore is designed without using your background knowledge. In other words, take a pose of ignorance, as if you were a stranger, and apply your design methodology so that we can see how it works.
Gerry said...
ReplyDeleteIt was you and Thorton who brought up Mt. Rushmore or do you forget the web address you sent me in an attempt to prove your case? As for my ignorance, are you now going to degenerate into name calling and ad hominem arguments? Doing so is a sure sign of a failed argument. That's Thorton's methodology, I hope you do not emulate him.
Referring to you as ignorant is not an ad hominem. It's merely an observation as you have indeed demonstrated great ignorance in various topics concerning evolutionary biology. That's nothing to be ashamed of, I personally am ignorant on many topics. I just don't go to online BBs and flaunt that ignorance like some.
I now refuse to respond to his comments because of his attitude. He continues to post comments directed at me, but he will grow old waiting for a response. He continues to spout the same pointless rhetoric and displays a stunning inability to understand what is being said.
Or he understands perfectly, points out the ignorance-based flaws in your arguments, and watches you play ostrich with your head in the sand.
On the other hand maybe he does understand but believes if he ignores the arguments presented to him they will somehow go away.
I don't care if you stay ignorant or not, or whether you respond. I know you still read what I write, so I'll just keep pointing out your beginner's mistakes for the lurkers. Silence just makes you look that much worse.
In ether case he is infamous for his red herring replies. He firmly believes if he repeats his illogical arguments and asserts his beliefs long enough they will in time become fact. Quite pitiful really.
LOL! Project much? How you coming with detecting design in that neolithic tool?
Anyway, please don't follow the lead of Thorton. Maintain a respectful attitude toward the beliefs of others.
I respect your right to be ignorant 100%, but that doesn't make your goofy IDC claims be correct. Science is not a democracy, and all ideas aren't guaranteed respect just by being presented.
You seem to think "disagrees with me and explains why" equates to "is disrespectful and only uses pointless rhetoric". You're not going to get very far in any discussion with that big chip on your shoulder.
I notice Zachriel is now asking the identical questions as I did. You going to accuse him of being disrespectful and spitting into the wind too?
Gerry,
ReplyDeleteTry to show that Mount Rushmore is designed without using your background knowledge. In other words, take a pose of ignorance, as if you were a stranger, and apply your design methodology so that we can see how it works.
Gerry said:
ReplyDelete"That is simply the argument from ID, prior experience tells us complex objects require intelligent input."
Define "complex", strictly. And, is an ordinary rock you could find in your garden "complex"?
"You said it was impossible to provide a CSI standard for Mt. Rushmore. I demonstrated it was. The simple fact the individual faces differed and are recognizable as specific individuals provides a measurable pattern of CSI."
Then what exactly is the "measurable pattern" and the "CSI standard" for Mt. Rushmore? In other words, show your calculations and the amount of "CSI" in Mt. Rushmore.
And, what about natural rock formations that look like faces or animals? Pick a couple of them and show exactly how "CSI" calculations will differentiate them from Mt. Rushmore (carved vs natural).
"When it comes to fossils the only objective fact is that you have a dead animal, after that everything is 100% subjective and influenced by the observer's bias."
That's partly true at times (and not everything is subjective), but it's also true of how we humans see Mt. Rushmore. We know, from previous knowledge, what human faces look like and we know that Mt. Rushmore was carved. What if we go to another planet where beings of some sort used to live (and are long extinct) and find rock formations that look completely natural to us but in fact were carved by those beings in the image of some of their faces? What if they look so much different than any faces we've ever seen that we can't recognize them as faces? How would we use "CSI" calculations to determine if they were carved, or are natural, and especially if they're weathered somewhat?