Who Will Tell the People?
That incredible sequence of whoppers makes us wonder, why is it that we cannot simply tell the truth about the science? Who will tell the people?
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Evolutionist on Complexity: “To some extent, it just happens”
That incredible sequence of whoppers makes us wonder, why is it that we cannot simply tell the truth about the science? Who will tell the people?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In your own words, what is "the truth about the science", cornelius?
ReplyDeleteInstead of beating around the bush as to what Cornelius thinks is the "truth about the science" let's put the following proposed truth about the science out there and see if you can refute the 380 pages of arguments upon which it is based..
Delete"Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate explanation for the origin of information and circuitry necessary to build ... animals." Steven Meyers in Darwins Doubt pg 381.
Meyer's ridiculous assertions have already been beaten into the proverbial pink mist by qualified scientists here and here. Meyer isn't a scientist, he's a philosopher, and the list of basic science mistakes he's made would fill a library.
DeleteWhy don't you tell us how Meyer's latest assertions fit in with the rest of the fossil evidence we have? There's over 2 billion years' worth of single-celled life and over 100 million years' worth of multi-celled animals in the fossil record before the Cambrian explosion. Where did they come from? And by far the greatest radiation of life forms happened after the Cambrian, the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event. Was that evolution or did the designer do them too?
Bottom line - Meyer's stupidity didn't even make it out of the batter's box with the real scientific community. Unsupported assertions made by ignorant laymen to prop up their religious beliefs don't cut it.
The "truth about science" in this context is that evolution is not a fact. This is plainly obvious in spite of the evolutionists' insistence to the contrary.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteCornelius Hunter
Deletewhy is it that we cannot simply tell the truth about the science?
We know why you can't - the DI pays you good money to lie about science, and you make sure you earn every cent.
I too am curious to see your evidence for the 'whoppers' Zimmer supposedly told. But you won't provide any. Your job is to just stir the pot and get the mouth breathing Fundies all riled up, not to back up any of the nonsense you push.
The "truth about science" in this context is that evolution is not a fact.
And right on cue you provide a perfect example; your same old tired equivocation between the observed fact of evolution and the theory of evolution which explains the observed fact. Oh well, as long as the DI's check clears, right CH?
Thorton:
DeleteWe know why you can't - the DI pays you good money to lie about science, and you make sure you earn every cent.
Evolutionists are moralizers. They are right and good. Everyone else is bad. The irony is they call you a liar while they are lying. Who says these comments should be filtered?
CH: The "truth about science" in this context is that evolution is not a fact.
Thorton: And right on cue you provide a perfect example; your same old tired equivocation between the observed fact of evolution and the theory of evolution which explains the observed fact. Oh well, as long as the DI's check clears, right CH?
This is another common fallacy evolutionists use. They make the claim that evolution is a fact, and since they of course can’t justify their claim, they resort to the charge that anyone who doesn’t go along with their abuse of science is equivocating. Of course there is no “observed fact of evolution,” quite the opposite. And throwing dirt, calling people liars, making false charges of equivocation, and contriving ad hominems won’t help. Evolution utterly relies on having enemies. So long as people question the mandate that the biological world (and everything else for that matter) arose spontaneously, evolutionists will vent their wrath.
Cornelius Hunter
DeleteEvolutionists are moralizers. They are right and good. Everyone else is bad.
No, only those who knowingly and willingly lie are bad. Sadly, that category includes every paid professional Creationist propagandize on the planet, especially those working for the Discovery Institute.
Who says these comments should be filtered?
No one mentioned anything about filtering. You were asked to provide evidence that what Zimmer wrote were 'whoppers'. You avoided the questions like you always do. Seems you have no answer.
This is another common fallacy evolutionists use. They make the claim that evolution is a fact, and since they of course can’t justify their claim, they resort to the charge that anyone who doesn’t go along with their abuse of science is equivocating. Of course there is no “observed fact of evolution,” quite the opposite.
LOL! I can see the sign on your new business: "Cornelius Hunter's Shark Jumping School".
Really CH, could your claims get any more ridiculous and over the top? Evolution - changes in the genetic and morphological makeup of populations over deep time - is one of the most well established facts in all of science. You might as well be yelling GRAVITY ISN'T A FACT!! for all the credibility you have.
So long as people question the mandate that the biological world (and everything else for that matter) arose spontaneously, evolutionists will vent their wrath
Question all you want. Just don't lie about and misrepresent the data that's out there while slandering honest scientists in the process. I know that's a lot to ask of you, but try. What does your religion teach you about honesty?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThorton:
DeleteThorton: the DI pays you good money to lie about science, and you make sure you earn every cent.
CH: The irony is they call you a liar while they are lying.
Thorton: No, only those who knowingly and willingly lie are bad.
You are judging yourself. Rule #1: Never lie to the one who knows you’re lying, it looks bad.
Sadly, that category includes every paid professional Creationist propagandize on the planet, especially those working for the Discovery Institute.
You’ve heard of “group selection.” This is “group slander.” Slandering people by the group is common for evolutionists. As I said the wrath will not stop.
You were asked to provide evidence that what Zimmer wrote were 'whoppers'. You avoided the questions like you always do. Seems you have no answer.
Oh my. Do you also need evidence that perpetual motion machines have not been built? Try reading the literature next time. Sorry but “studies” do not “suggest” that random mutations “can fuel the emergence of complexity.” There is no such study. Unlike you I’ve looked. Nor has science demonstrated that “intricate systems of proteins can evolve from simpler ones.” Quite the opposite, what science has demonstrated is that evolution’s prediction about protein evolution is false, and that proteins must have evolved by some unknown mechanism, or by sheer dumb luck, overcoming astronomical odds over, and over and over. Nor does science reveal that “To some extent, it [complexity] just happens.” Maybe we do indeed live in a magical evolutionary world where magnificence “just happens,” but that is not what the science is indicating.
Continued:
Thorton:
DeleteThorton: And right on cue you provide a perfect example; your same old tired equivocation between the observed fact of evolution and the theory of evolution which explains the observed fact.
CH: This is another common fallacy evolutionists use. They make the claim that evolution is a fact, and since they of course can’t justify their claim, they resort to the charge that anyone who doesn’t go along with their abuse of science is equivocating.
Thorton: Really CH, could your claims get any more ridiculous and over the top? Evolution - changes in the genetic and morphological makeup of populations over deep time - is one of the most well established facts in all of science. You might as well be yelling GRAVITY ISN'T A FACT!! for all the credibility you have.
What I forgot to mention is that, while making their false charges of equivocation, evolutionists, well, equivocate. Sound familiar? Thorton you lie and equivocate, and then scream that everyone else is lying and equivocating.
The problem is that evolutionists want their cake and eat it too. They insist evolution is a fact but when asked to explain their rather dubious claim they change the definition to mere change over time.
So let’s review, yet again, the evolutionist’s ridiculous claim. Here is a representative version from leading evolutionist Jerry Coyne:
Now, when we say that “evolution is true,” what we mean is that the major tenets of Darwinism have been verified. Organisms evolved, they did so gradually, lineages split into different species from common ancestors, and natural selection is the major engine of adaptation. No serious biologist doubts these propositions.
You can see more such claims here:
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/05/you-wont-believe-what-evolutionists.html
But why stop there. Let’s have a look at Thorton’s own claims. Like all evolutionists he believes the species spontaneously arose:
That evolution has occurred - the common descent and speciation of life forms on the planet over a 3+ billion year history - is an indisputable fact. It's probably the most well supported fact in the history of science.
[http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-common-code-surely-that-means-theyre.html?showComment=1362891330662#c7477253937334714327]
But then later, when the actual scientific evidence is asked for, he suddenly switches the claim. Mysteriously the claim becomes downsized to mere genetic and morphological change:
Really CH, could your claims get any more ridiculous and over the top? Evolution - changes in the genetic and morphological makeup of populations over deep time - is one of the most well established facts in all of science. You might as well be yelling GRAVITY ISN'T A FACT!! for all the credibility you have.
[http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/07/evolutionist-on-complexity-to-some.html?showComment=1374758468449#c3058794520460988685]
Oh my, the “indisputable fact” which is “probably the most well supported fact in the history of science” just got downgraded from “the common descent and speciation of life forms on the planet” to “changes in the genetic and morphological makeup of populations.”
And when challenged you scream “equivocation.”
So Thorton, not only do you falsely accuse us of lying while you are lying, you also falsely accuse us of equivocation while you are equivocating.
Actually, Thorton is correctly accusing you of lying when you falsely accuse him of lying when he correctly accused you of lying.
DeleteAnd...Thorton correctly accuses you of equivocation when you falsely accuse him of equivocating when he correctly accuses you of equivocating.
(Just kidding.)
THorton:
DeleteMeyer's ridiculous assertions have already been beaten into the proverbial pink mist by qualified scientists here and here. Meyer isn't a scientist, he's a philosopher, and the list of basic science mistakes he's made would fill a library.
The two links take us to Pandas Thumb, and Amazon.com. The link at PT is Nick Matzke's "review" of Meyers' book, written, most likely, before he had even read the book. Even giving him the benefit of the doubt, the arguments he musters are questionable and inconsequential. And let's remember that he is a graduate student, not a Ph.D. Look here for a review by Casey Luskin.
The link at Amazon brings us to Prthero's book. Here's what one reviewer had to say about Prothero's book:
Dr. Prothero's venomous anger at creationism, particularly the young earth group, rings clear and loud. The book is entitled Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, not Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why I Hate Creationists with Every Fiber of My Being, though the latter would be a much more descriptive title. He spends quite a large part of his monograph discrediting the creationists and deservedly so, especially when considering their scientific dishonesty (i.e., ICR's recent 2 volume "report" on radiometric dating and the age of the earth, quite expensive, lengthy, and full of unscientific speculation that should discredit them, but probably won't because of the general scientific illiteracy in this country). Even though the creation "scientists" deserve discrediting, the venomous name-calling in Dr. Prothero's book demonstrates his unwillingness to show a higher integrity level than they. He even resorts to comparing them with holocaust deniers!.
Not a very flattering review, eh?
And then there's Prother's own review of Meyer's Darwins's Doubt; here's how he starts the review:
The Dunning-Kruger effect is a well-known phenomenon in psychology first named in 1998, but it has been recognized since before the Bible and Shakespeare. In a nutshell, it is (as Bertrand Russell put it) "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
The remainder of the review is his lambaste of Meyer, wherein Prothero displays an amazingly high level of confidence in what he thinks, and in what Meyer doesn't know admits of no uncertainty or doubt.
Per his initial statement, Prothero's "cocksure" attitude is a sign that he is "stupid."
I think I'll just leave it at that.
Lino,
DeleteEven giving him the benefit of the doubt, the arguments he musters are questionable and inconsequential. And let's remember that he is a graduate student, not a Ph.D. Look here for a review by Casey Luskin.
What are Casey Luskin's and your qualifications in order that we may determine your ability to judge the arguments as well?
Per his initial statement, Prothero's "cocksure" attitude is a sign that he is "stupid."
Actually you are incorrect, " The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average"
Porthero is not unskilled, his area of expertise is the subject of the book, what is Meyer's exact ares of expertise and degrees in, Lino ?
DrHunter,
DeleteSorry but “studies” do not “suggest” that random mutations “can fuel the emergence of complexity.” There is no such study. Unlike you I’ve looked. Nor has science demonstrated that “intricate systems of proteins can evolve from simpler ones.
This must be news to the authors of the studies, a one man peer review
Cornelius Hunter
DeleteRule #1: Never lie to the one who knows you’re lying, it looks bad.
Rule #1A. Try following your own advice instead of continuing your decidedly non-Christian behavior.
Sorry but “studies” do not “suggest” that random mutations “can fuel the emergence of complexity.” There is no such study. Unlike you I’ve looked.
You didn't look very hard.
Variation within and among species in gene expression: raw material for evolution
A mutation accumulation assay reveals a broad capacity for rapid evolution of gene expression
Of course there's not one individual study that covers every detail but literally millions of studies taken in total, all with bits of positive evidence for evolution over deep time. Funny how millions of professional scientists all over the world have managed to find the conclusive evidence but the paid Creationist propagandist can't.
But then later, when the actual scientific evidence is asked for, he suddenly switches the claim. Mysteriously the claim becomes downsized to mere genetic and morphological change:
Nothing has changed CH, except maybe your level of ridiculous reality denial. Coyne's and both my descriptions are correct for the observed fact of evolution. There are thousands of colleges and universities along with natural history museums where you can see the evidence. There are thousands of places online if you're too lazy to move.
I have to admit that was one of your better spittle-flying hissy fits. I'll give it an 8.5, the DI should pay you a bonus for sure. Pity that the content was the same old lies and BS you sling in all your anti-science diatribes. Hard to find new material, innit?
V:
DeleteRemember, evolution is taken as a given from the start. Their conclusions do not “suggest” that random mutations “can fuel the emergence of complexity" from an objective perspective any more than Aristotelian "studies" suggested teleology.
PaV Lino, in your haste to post that knee-jerk reaction to defend your fellow IDiot Creationist Meyer you forgot to answer the questions:
Delete"Why don't you tell us how Meyer's latest assertions fit in with the rest of the fossil evidence we have? There's over 2 billion years' worth of single-celled life and over 100 million years' worth of multi-celled animals in the fossil record before the Cambrian explosion. Where did they come from? And by far the greatest radiation of life forms happened after the Cambrian, the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event. Was that evolution or did the designer do them too?"
Over to you Mr. Expert.
Cornelius Hunter
DeleteRemember, evolution is taken as a given from the start.
It is now because it's been verified with 150+ years of positive evidence. It wasn't taken as a given at all when first introduced. ToE had to earn its stripes, which it did conclusively.
Ever new scientific paper doesn't have to re-verify from scratch every previously established fact CH. Do you really not understand that basic tenet of science?
Velikovsky:
DeleteActually you are incorrect, " The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average"
Intelligent people entertain doubts. Prothero has none. So, at the very least, he's not 'intelligent,' per his own quotation.
However, I didn't say he was 'stupid;' I said that given his quotation, and his subsequent actions, he fell into the category of "stupid."
He's not stupid. He's just acting that way.
As to Matzke, whether I have a degree that is his equivalent or higher, or, for that matter, Luskin, all this notwithstanding, one must still make a rational argument. Matzke uses a figure that undermines the argument he is making. And, in conformity with the argument Meyer makes.
And, THorton, if you're looking in, the figure Matzke uses demonstrates that the lineages that we know about, those prior to the Cambrian, are not connected. This only exacerbates the Darwinist's problems. It solves none.
As to a Designer, your mind, and my mind, are too puny to know why we see what happens. Nevertheless, our minds are keen enough to see the residue of design. That much we can understand. Unless bias blinds us otherwise.
PaV Lino
DeleteAnd, THorton, if you're looking in, the figure Matzke uses demonstrates that the lineages that we know about, those prior to the Cambrian, are not connected. This only exacerbates the Darwinist's problems. It solves none.
I didn't ask you about "Darwinist's problems". I asked you how all the rest of the billions of years' worth of empirical data, both before and after fits in with Meyer's claimed Cambrian scenario.
It's pretty obvious none of you IDiots though through the ramifications of Meyer's ridiculous claims, even a little bit. Meyer sure didn't.
THorton:
DeleteAnd by far the greatest radiation of life forms happened after the Cambrian, the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event. Was that evolution or did the designer do them too?"
Tommy:
We're not talking about "radiations"; we're talking about 'bau-plans.' Very different. Let's not equivocate.
Velikovsky:
DeleteHere's a fine take-down of Prothero, if you're interested.
Prothero is caught, once again, of being guilty of what he charges Meyer of--amongst many more important things he got wrong.
You know, if you Darwinists want to impress the ID camp, why not try reading, understanding, engaging, and then refuting what is written by IDers. You always resort to distortion and ad hominems. This isn't how science is supposed to be done.
PaV Lino
DeleteWe're not talking about "radiations"; we're talking about 'bau-plans.' Very different. Let's not equivocate.
Let's not evade the tough questions.
I'm asking about the well documented radiation after the Cambrian biota appeared, new species arising with clear evolutionary lineages. I'm also asking about the billions of years of life before the Cambrian, as well as the few Cambrian body plans that do show a clear lineage back to the Ediacaran.
Meyer didn't cover them at all. What is your story for how the data fits with Meyer's claims?
THorton:
DeleteI didn't ask you about "Darwinist's problems". I asked you how all the rest of the billions of years' worth of empirical data, both before and after fits in with Meyer's claimed Cambrian scenario.
Reading comprehension problem alert. They DON'T fit in. That's the point.
What, exactly, is the Darwinian explanation for bacteria replicating itself for a billion years before eukaryotic life emerges? How does this transition take place? Where are the intermediates Darwin promises us?
All those billion, trillion replications, and NO intermediates. It's a "Darwinian problem."
The Ediacaran fossils don't represent the same body-plans that the Cambrian does. No connection here. You see this, don't you?
It's a problem for Darwinism.
Shall I go on?
PaV Lino
DeleteYou always resort to distortion and ad hominems.
Congratulation PaV. You just melted every Hypocrisy-Meter within a cubic parsec.
This isn't how science is supposed to be done.
Science isn't done by writing popular press books full of misinformation and outright lies to gull untrained laymen either. But you IDiots have never been about doing science, have you?
PaV
DeleteIt's a problem for Darwinism.
Try reading for comprehension PaV. Once again:
I didn't ask for you to repeat your attacks on 'Darwinism'. I asked for how the empirical data fits in with Meyer's ID scenario.
All you IDiots ever to do is scream "DARWINISM IS WRONG!!' We know you think it's wrong.
I want to hear YOUR EXPLANATION for the empirical data. ALL the data, not just the Cambrian.
Do you have one or not?
PaV Lino
DeleteTHorton: I didn't ask you about "Darwinist's problems". I asked you how all the rest of the billions of years' worth of empirical data, both before and after fits in with Meyer's claimed Cambrian scenario.
Reading comprehension problem alert. They DON'T fit in. That's the point.
PaV you knucklehead, if the empirically observed data doesn't fit Meyer's scenario then it's Meyer's scenario that's wrong, not empirically observed reality.
Damn we have some slow creationists around here.
Thorton:
DeleteThere’s nothing quite like an evolutionist who is caught in his lies. He can’t just admit to it, because then the game would be up. So he keeps on digging and shouting, faster and faster as he becomes increasingly transparent.
CH: Rule #1: Never lie to the one who knows you’re lying, it looks bad.
Thorton: Rule #1A. Try following your own advice instead of continuing your decidedly non-Christian behavior.
But you are the one who is lying, remember? Such as with this tired, silly lie you think will help your pathetic theory:
Oh well, as long as the DI's check clears, right CH? … the DI should pay you a bonus for sure.
Is the rhetorical value of your steady stream of lies really more valuable than the all the egg on your face? Who would actually believe this?
But we haven’t even begun have we? Next, after vaguely accusing us of some unspecified lies, you make a desperate google search to try to justify yourself. Your first paper is a review of inter- and intra-specific gene expression rate variation. Sorry, gene expression rate variations cannot explain the emergence of complexity. The genes themselves, not to mention the expression machinery, are incredibly complex. You can’t explain the emergence of complexity with the products of astonishingly complex designs. Hilarious.
Even evolutionists, in their honest moments, admit there must be some unknown mechanism, in order for evolution to work. In fact your paper even agrees these data may be hard to interpret, that the supposed effects of drift versus different types of selection are subtle and may be difficult to distinguish, that future studies hopefully can make more progress and that much more effort is needed to understand how expression variation fuels evolution, which they are so sure of. And how can they be so certain of this incredible and unsupported conclusion? Because, of course, they assume evolution is true from the outset. ROFL.
As does your second paper which begins with the ludicrous statement that “Mutation is the ultimate source of biological diversity because it generates the variation that fuels evolution.” In an attempt to justify their starting point they cite a 1998 textbook which also presupposes evolution is true!
Beyond that the paper focuses on the relationship between mutations and gene expression rates. They conclude that gene expression does not evolve according to strictly neutral models and that natural variation in gene expression is relatively constrained. Hilarious again, because that contradicts your first paper which concludes that gene expression variation is mostly neutral!
Gotta love it. You could have at least googled self-consistent papers. I guess being good with google doesn’t mean you understand science.
Continued …
Thorton:
DeleteOf course there's not one individual study that covers every detail but literally millions of studies taken in total, all with bits of positive evidence for evolution over deep time.
Oh but of course. Certainly there are just millions and millions of studies, too many actually to read or understand, that no doubt prove the entire biological world spontaneously poofed into existence. Happens all the time. Doesn’t matter that none of this is scientific.
And finally back to your equivocation:
Nothing has changed CH, except maybe your level of ridiculous reality denial. Coyne's and both my descriptions are correct for the observed fact of evolution.
Nothing has changed? Nothing except your ever evolving equivocation on evolution. First it is an “indisputable fact” which is “probably the most well supported fact in the history of science” that “the common descent and speciation of life forms on the planet.” Then to defend the claim, it mysteriously is downgraded to “changes in the genetic and morphological makeup of populations.” And now when exposed you switch back, agreeing with Coyne that “Now, when we say that ‘evolution is true,’ what we mean is that the major tenets of Darwinism have been verified. Organisms evolved, they did so gradually, lineages split into different species from common ancestors, and natural selection is the major engine of adaptation. No serious biologist doubts these propositions.”
But of course Coyne proves his point with dozens of various religious claims. And now that we’ve got you back to the correct definition of evolution in the “evolution is a fact” claim, you now lose your “equivocation” lie. So even you can’t level that charge anymore—at least until you equivocate on evolution again. 48 hours?
You seem to have stuck a nerve,Thorton.
DeleteCornelius Hunter
DeleteIs the rhetorical value of your steady stream of lies really more valuable than the all the egg on your face? Who would actually believe this?
LOL! Who's got the egg on their face Mr. Pinocchio Nose?
Cornelius G. Hunter, Fellow - CSC
And how can they be so certain of this incredible and unsupported conclusion? Because, of course, they assume evolution is true from the outset.
In an attempt to justify their starting point they cite a 1998 textbook which also presupposes evolution is true!
Double LOL! Now who's doing the 100 yard dash backpedal? You went from "there's NO papers, because I LOOKED!" to "OK, there are papers but they don't count because they ASSUME EVOLUTION IS TRUE!!".
If you stuck your foot in your mouth any deeper you'd turn yourself inside out.
Certainly there are just millions and millions of studies, too many actually to read or understand
Millions and millions of scientists all over the world have read and understand them. And then there's the Creationist numbskulls at the DI...
First it is an “indisputable fact” which is “probably the most well supported fact in the history of science” that “the common descent and speciation of life forms on the planet.” Then to defend the claim, it mysteriously is downgraded to “changes in the genetic and morphological makeup of populations.”
LOL again! That's not a downgrade, it's just a restatement of the same fact. But I get that many Creationists think screaming a lie loud enough and long enough makes it magically come true. Is that your working hypothesis?
Got the spittle-flying rant knob up to 9 now too I see. What's going on, Abramson or some other DI brass doing a spot inspection to see if you're earning their propaganda money?
velikovskys
DeleteYou seem to have stuck a nerve,Thorton.
I certainly hope so. It's a shame to see someone like CH drag Christianity through the mud with the steady stream of anti-science lies.
The "truth about science" in this context is that evolution is not a fact. This is plainly obvious in spite of the evolutionists' insistence to the contrary.
DeleteCornelius. I'll directly ask you yet again...
Are dinosaurs merely an interpretation of our best explanation of fossils? Or are they *the* explanation for fossils?
We never speak of the existence of dinosaurs, millions of years ago, as an interoperation of our best theories of fossils. Rather, we say that dinosaurs are the explanation for fossils. Nor is the theory primarily about fossils, but about dinosaurs, in that they are assumed to actually exist as part of the explanation.
And we do so despite the fact that there are an infinite number of rival interpretations of the same data that make all the same predictions, yet say the dinosaurs were not there, millions of years ago, in reality.
Thorton:
DeleteLOL! Who's got the egg on their face Mr. Pinocchio Nose?
Up until now I thought you were simply defending absurd ideas with fallacious and vacuous arguments. But now you’re really making sense.
Double LOL! Now who's doing the 100 yard dash backpedal? You went from "there's NO papers, because I LOOKED!" to "OK, there are papers but they don't count because they ASSUME EVOLUTION IS TRUE!!"
Zimmer says studies suggest random mutations can fuel the emergence of complexity and it turns out that, sure enough, there are plenty of such papers! So what if those papers assume evolution is true in the first place. This is a classic. Evolutionists cite evidence, for the truth of their ideas, which assume the truth of their ideas to begin with. And they seriously think these circular arguments make sense. How dare we doubt their begging the question.
If you stuck your foot in your mouth any deeper you'd turn yourself inside out.
Hmm, good point. Your arguments for evolution are becoming quite convincing. So far you’ve lied, equivocated and cited papers for support which not only contradict each other but say nothing of the sort. In fact your argument is circular, but you see nothing wrong with it. Oh, and you hypocritically accused us of doing all those things you did. Then you got really serious and started in on the name calling. What next (and no, you can’t claim equivocation, you’ve got another 47 hours to go before you can flip-flop on that again).
Cornelius Hunter
DeleteBut now you’re really making sense.
Low hanging fruit. It was amazingly dumb of you to deny your long term affiliation as a DI Fellow when it's so easy to check.
Zimmer says studies suggest random mutations can fuel the emergence of complexity and it turns out that, sure enough, there are plenty of such papers! So what if those papers assume evolution is true in the first place.
OK, you must want everyone to think you're the most ignorant pseudo-scientist around. The only one on the planet who thinks every new published paper has to re-validate all facts previously established over the last 150 years. Lucky for you those in the scientific community who actually read your drivel think that of you anyway.
So far you’ve lied, equivocated and cited papers for support which not only contradict each other but say nothing of the sort. In fact your argument is circular, but you see nothing wrong with it.
Ah, there's the "Baghdad Bob" Creationist propagandist we all know and love. GRAVITY ISN'T A FACT!! Man, those sharks you keep jumping never had a chance!
C'mon, did someone alert Biola that you were lying about their Doctrinal Statement you signed and now you're being the angry little ant to keep your job there too? Same thing happened to Dembski as I recall
Thorton:
DeleteIt was amazingly dumb of you to deny your long term affiliation as a DI Fellow
There you go again, making up more lies. I never denied anything of the sort.
OK, you must want everyone to think you're the most ignorant pseudo-scientist around. The only one on the planet who thinks every new published paper has to re-validate all facts previously established over the last 150 years. Lucky for you those in the scientific community who actually read your drivel think that of you anyway.
Oh my, it’s getting deeper. Here’s the summary:
Evolutionists say random mutations can fuel the emergence of complexity. To justify this silly claim Thorton cites some papers. But the papers presuppose the truth of evolution to begin with. So of course they must believe that random mutations, one way or another, lead to complexity. One of the papers even starts right off with the claim: “Mutation is the ultimate source of biological diversity because it generates the variation that fuels evolution.” So the argument is circular. The papers that were supposed to demonstrate how random mutations fueled the creation of the species and the fantastic designs did nothing of the sort. They raised more problems than they solved, and they even contradicted each other. And they presupposed the truth of evolution. When we pointed out these minor little problems, Thorton complained that we can’t expect new papers to “re-validate all facts previously established over the last 150 years.”
Hilarious. So at first the papers were supposed to prove the point, but now they are *not* supposed to prove the point. Gotta love it. Evolutionary pablum at its best.
Look we’ve had some fun here, and I appreciate that you’re trying. You’re doing the best you can, but you’re defending a loser. How about we step back for a moment and look at the big picture. Science simply is not revealing to us that the biological world spontaneously arose from chance events. It just isn’t, no matter how much evolutionists insist, threaten, demand, blackball and all the rest. Do we really want to be carrying the water for the man behind the curtain?
Lino,
DeleteIntelligent people entertain doubts. Prothero has none. So, at the very least, he's not 'intelligent,' per his own quotation
Per his initial statement, Prothero's "cocksure" attitude is a sign that he is "stupid."
Only if you don't know the meaning of " cocksure" which is" : feeling perfect assurance sometimes on inadequate grounds " the definition of Dunning-Kuger which it his point. So since he is not cocksure this " the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." does not apply to him in the field of paleontology
However, I didn't say he was 'stupid;' I said that given his quotation, and his subsequent actions, he fell into the category of "stupid."
So you are only saying he is in the same category as stupid people, not that he is stupid.
Cornelius Hunter
DeleteThere you go again, making up more lies. I never denied anything of the sort.
LOL! You called me a liar for pointing out you work for the DI. Now when caught you admit you work for the DI. Don't kid yourself CH, that makes you the liar in anyone's book.
What I don't understand is why you feel the need to lie for your religion. You spit right in the face of honest Christians everywhere when you lie about science and scientists like you so often do.
Evolutionists say random mutations can fuel the emergence of complexity. To justify this silly claim Thorton cites some papers. But the papers presuppose the truth of evolution to begin with.
Why shouldn't they when it's already been demonstrated to be a fact many times over? The experiment is just further investigating the mechanisms. Geologists don't have to listen to crackpots shouting BUT YOU PRESUME THE TRUTH OF PLATE TECTONICS!! Why should anyone listen to your crackpottery?
So of course they must believe that random mutations, one way or another, lead to complexity.
They don't "must" anything. They accept it because that's what the evidence shows.
You still don't have this science thing figured out yet. Science starts with the evidence and lets the evidence drive the conclusion. You start with your religious conclusion and ignore all contradictory evidence. Science's way works. Yours only makes you look like a religious nutter.
Look we’ve had some fun here, and I appreciate that you’re trying.
Great fun, but I feel somewhat guilty having a battle of wits with someone who's only half prepared. ;)
You’re doing the best you can, but you’re defending a loser.
Sure thing Baghdad Bob. What's the score in the scientific community where it counts? Funny how you've been "destroying" evolution for years yet the evolutionary sciences haven't missed a beat. Last time I looked your Creation "Science" buddies at the DI were still the same laughingstocks they always were.
Science simply is not revealing to us that the biological world spontaneously arose from chance events.
Since no one in science says or thinks the biological world we see today arose solely through chance events what's your point? Besides flogging the same poor old rickety strawman you've been pounding for years.
Thorton:
DeleteYou called me a liar for pointing out you work for the DI. Now when caught you admit you work for the DI. Don't kid yourself CH, that makes you the liar in anyone's book.
There you go again, … again. I don’t “work for the DI.” But then again, you already knew that.
Why shouldn't they when it's already been demonstrated to be a fact many times over? The experiment is just further investigating the mechanisms.
But if that is the case, then the papers don’t indicate random mutations just luckily, somehow, lead to astonishing complexity. The papers show nothing of the sort. They present precisely zero findings to suggest any such thing. In fact the papers contradicted each other. Of course to understand all this, you would actually have to read the papers rather than merely google them up and paste the links into a message. And you’re telling us evolution is all about science. Oh my.
They [the papers] accept it [the random mutations lead to astonishing complexity] because that's what the evidence shows.
Oh really? And what evidence would that be? Oh that’s right, you cited *these* papers *as* the evidence. Unbelievably hilarious. You would think this is a parody, but it isn’t. The evolutionist out does himself yet again.
Since no one in science says or thinks the biological world we see today arose solely through chance events what's your point?
Oh really? Please supply us with quotes from an evolutionist proposing teleology. And no, natural selection is not teleology. To forestall your next fallacy, natural selection doesn’t guide or induce the biological variation it works on. That variation must be random with respect to fitness, remember? You might want to read up on the ideas you insist must be a fact (remember, no equivocating for still another 34 hours).
drhunter,
DeleteOh really? Please supply us with quotes from an evolutionist proposing teleology
You contend that nobody can know what is the teleology of a designer with your Gould quote, now you wish that scientists propose it?
Theistic evolutionists believe in teleology, that God has the ability to reach His Goal thru nature, are you saying that either that is impossible or that you know God's teleos scientifically?
V:
DeleteYou contend that nobody can know what is the teleology of a designer
No, I didn't say that. The Gould quote is an example of evolution's metaphysics.
How? Even with humans it is iffy, but since one can't logically eliminate an unknown kind of designer, how does one know its goals without metaphysics?
DeleteAs for Gould it may be metaphysics but it is the question of knowing a possible teleology ( good design,) of a particular designer, which you say may be possible. Also what you seem to desire in science.
To be exact, what is the teleology of all life on earth? An evolutionist would say to reproduce, which by the way would be proposing teleology. What say you? You must have given it a thought since you seem to wish to include it into science.
V:
DeleteYou must have given it a thought since you seem to wish to include it into science.
No I'm not the one including, or wishing to include, teleology in science. Evolutionists have a love/hate affair with it. Their theory excludes teleology. Everything you see just happened to happen. But since that makes no sense they import teleological language and concepts into their explanations. Opposable thumbs arose in order to grasp things. Such teleological language and concepts run all through the literature.
Hunter:
DeleteEverything you see just happened to happen. But since that makes no sense they import teleological language and concepts into their explanations.
Of course "everything you see [just] happened to happen." How could it be otherwise? Didn't your god "happen to happen"? Or do you have evidence that your god was designed?
Pinocchio Hunter
DeleteI don’t “work for the DI.”
LOL! You've been a Fellow at the DI's CSC for years. According to their tax filings Fellows receive between $10K and $40K of 'grant' money per year.
Go ahead CH, swear on your Bible that you've never received any money from the DI. We'll wait.
But if that is the case, then the papers don’t indicate random mutations just luckily, somehow, lead to astonishing complexity.
You claimed there are no papers that even suggest random mutations fueled evolution. The papers I posted show you are completely wrong. There are literally thousands of other papers that show the same thing. Either you're hopelessly ignorant of the scientific data or you're a willful liar. Which is it CH?
Please supply us with quotes from an evolutionist proposing teleology.
No one in science says that either Pinocchio. As you well know, the process of evolution has a random component (genetic variation) and a non-random component, selection. But being the good little Creationist propagandist you are you have to set up the false dichotomy, all random or all guided.
You might convince some of your functionally illiterate followers with such shoddy logic and rhetoric but you're just making the scientific community laugh harder. They're not laughing with you either.
Thorton:
DeleteLOL! You've been a Fellow at the DI's CSC for years. According to their tax filings Fellows receive between $10K and $40K of 'grant' money per year.
We of course did not think that this time you would relent upon correction. Why should this time be any different? It doesn’t matter how many times you correct the evolutionist’s “errors,” they will always be good and right and you will always be bad and wrong. No matter how many times I say I don’t get paid, Thorton will just continue with the lie. Evolution utterly relies on having enemies. For evolutionists it is all about ad hominems and innuendoes and any kind of lie they care to dream up in order to blackball and slander. This is all a distraction from the ridiculous theory they insist is true.
You claimed there are no papers that even suggest random mutations fueled evolution.
And the papers you supplied made my case, unless by “suggest” you meant “presuppose.”
The papers I posted show you are completely wrong.
This is embarrassing. Well at least you are consistent. Wrong, but consistent. As a google expert you are good at finding and pasting links to papers. What you’re not good at is reading or understanding the papers. In fact you don’t even understand the papers after they have been explained to you. The papers do not suggest random mutations fueled evolution. They believe it from the outset and utterly fail to justify that absurd belief.
If you were actually to read the papers, you would find that your first paper is a review of gene expression rate variation. Gene expression rate variations cannot explain the emergence of complexity. The genes themselves, not to mention the expression machinery, are incredibly complex. You can’t explain the emergence of complexity with the products of astonishingly complex designs. Well *you* can, because circular arguments never bothered evolutionists before. I should say *one* can’t, where by *one* I mean people who restrain themselves to logical discourse.
But even evolutionists, in their “honest moments” as SJ Gould put it, admit there must be some unknown mechanism, in order for evolution to work. In fact your first paper even agrees that their data may be hard to interpret, that the supposed effects of drift versus different types of selection are subtle and may be difficult to distinguish, that future studies hopefully can make more progress and that much more effort is needed to understand how expression variation fuels evolution, which they are so sure of. And how can they be so certain of this incredible and unsupported conclusion? Because, of course, they assume evolution is true from the outset.
As does your second paper which begins with the ludicrous statement that “Mutation is the ultimate source of biological diversity because it generates the variation that fuels evolution.” How could that possibly be their starting point? In a failed attempt to justify their religious claim they cite a text that also presupposes evolution is true! Unbelievable. This is all circular.
The paper concludes that gene expression does not evolve according to strictly neutral models and that natural variation in gene expression is relatively constrained. But that contradicts your first paper which concludes that gene expression variation is mostly neutral!
So in other words, you supplied two papers that not only utterly failed to support your (and Zimmer’s) claim, but they also contradicted each other!
But we haven’t even reached the good part yet.
continued ...
Thorton:
DeleteNext you flip-flopped and said that the papers presuppose that the random mutations lead to astonishing complexity because that's what the evidence shows. And what evidence would that be? Oh that’s right, you cited *these* papers *as* the evidence. That was not just any old flip-flop. That was a 1 1/2 flip flop ending in the biggest belly flop we’ve seen yet.
But wait, we’re still not to the good part. Now you’re trying to walk it all back and undo the belly flop. Now you’re back to saying the papers suggest random mutations fueled evolution! Unbelievable. So we have to explain it all again. Oh well, we had you straightened out at least for a minute there.
There are literally thousands of other papers that show the same thing.
Oh righttttt, now we’re back to the “all those papers” argument. Forget about the two he started with since they failed miserably. There are just literally thousands (literally?) of equally fallacious papers waiting to be plumbed.
Well now you have lied, equivocated, cited contradictory papers that proved exactly the opposite of what you insisted, and flip-flopped so many times we can’t keep count. What next? Remember, no equivocating allowed for still another 17 hours.
DrHunter,
DeleteEvolution utterly relies on having enemies. For evolutionists it is all about ad hominems and innuendoes and any kind of lie they care to dream up in order to blackball and slander. This is all a distraction from the ridiculous theory they insist is true
Are you doing the same, what exactly is your sample to extrapolate what evolutionists do? You are letting your bias show as well, " ridiculous theory" is hardly the view of an person who doesn't care if a theory is correct or not.
No I'm not the one including, or wishing to include, teleology in science
A question, is the belief that mutations are random with regard to fitness a teleological aspect in science? Can random be as teleological as directed?
But since that makes no sense they import teleological language and concepts into their explanations. Opposable thumbs arose in order to grasp things. Such teleological language and concepts run all through the literature.
You and Jeff have a lot in common, do you have a source for that thumb thing?
V:
DeleteA question, is the belief that mutations are random with regard to fitness a teleological aspect in science?
If mutations were not random with regard to fitness then they would "know" something. It would be a sign of final causes and teleology which is not allowed. However, evolutionists are convinced of their idea not because of the science, but the metaphysics. Also, evolutionists consistently rely on teleological language and concepts when explaining their theory. So the metaphysics is hard to keep down. It's going to push through somewhere. Question is where, and do we acknowledge it.
teleological
Pinocchio Hunter
Delete(snip more angry ant blithering)
Gee CH, for all that blustering and hot air blowing and lying about the scientific data again you completely ignored the main request:
Go ahead CH, swear on your Bible that you've never received any money from the DI. We'll wait.
And wait.
And wait.
And wait.
Color me not in the least bit surprised.
That's what the evolution myth boils down to: evolutionists telling us to just accept common ancestry evolution and not ask them to provide empirical evidence for it. They know how scientifically bankrupt their myth is which is why they don't want academic freedom in schools.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Deletenv,
DeleteThat's what the evolution myth boils down to: evolutionists telling us to just accept common ancestry evolution and not ask them to provide empirical evidence for it
What would you prefer and what is the empirical evidence for it?
They know how scientifically bankrupt their myth is which is why they don't want academic freedom in schools.
Move to Louisiana
Vel wrote:
DeleteWhat would you prefer and what is the empirical evidence for it?
I would prefer darwinists tell the truth about their myth and how the evidence continually falsifies the predictions made by them.
Move to Louisiana
I'd rather stay and fight for Academic freedom, but it's sad you seem fine with such extreme censorship in science.
National Velour
DeleteI would prefer darwinists tell the truth about their myth and how the evidence continually falsifies the predictions made by them.
We do tell the truth. It's just you Creationists are so wrapped up in your own web of lies and deceit you wouldn't know honest science if it bit you on the butt cheeks.
I'd rather stay and fight for Academic freedom
"Academic Freedom" doesn't give you the legal right to teach Holocaust denial, that the Earth is flat, that the stork brings the babies, or Young Earth Creationism.
nv,
DeleteI'd rather stay and fight for Academic freedom, but it's sad you seem fine with such extreme censorship in science.
I am all for all freedom, you have not supplied any empirical evidence on how teaching science in science class is abridging freedom.
I would prefer darwinists tell the truth about their myth and how the evidence continually falsifies the predictions made by them
Silly evolutionists testing their theory, my question was please provide empirical evidence for your alternative as well as enough specification that it might be even theoretically falsified.
You need to provide an equivalent choice if you want to claim it is being denied.
velik said:
DeleteI am all for all freedom, you have not supplied any empirical evidence on how teaching science in science class is abridging freedom.
You're confusing darwin's myth with science. Who allegedly provided the empirical evidence for it and what experiment did they use? Such a person would be worshipped more than darwin, by evolutionists.
Let me show you how it hinders science. Mary Schweitzer found a T-Rex bone and ASSUMED it was completely fossilized since she ASSUMED 70 million years had elapsed since the dinosaur died. Thankfully, the bone was too big to transport and had to be cut...and imagine what they found inside when they cut it - organic material still present (after allegedly 70 million years - rolls eyes) Had she not had to cut the specimen to transport it, she would have ASSUMED that it was completely fossilized, but it wasn't.
In light of this new discovery, she decided to investigate another dinosaur sample she had sitting on a shelf in her office, and VOILA! More organic material present. And remember, they had told us for years that organic material cannot last more than 100,000 years MAXIMUM! Suddenly, that fact is now thrown out the window simply because it contradicts the darwinian timeline and we all know, darwin's myth supersedes science.
That is how the belief in darwin's myth hinders science.
Silly evolutionists testing their theory, my question was please provide empirical evidence for your alternative as well as enough specification that it might be even theoretically falsified.
If they wanted to test their theory, why don't they take Behe's challenge? It's almost as if they know mutations will not build up the genome over time.
Behe said:
Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments.
Now let’s turn that around and ask, How do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterial flagellum? If that same scientist went into the lab and knocked out the bacterial flagellum genes, grew the bacterium for a long time, and nothing much happened, well, he’d say maybe we didn’t start with the right bacterium, maybe we didn’t wait long enough, maybe we need a bigger population, and it would be very much more difficult to falsify the Darwinian hypothesis.
You need to provide an equivalent choice if you want to claim it is being denied.
Intelligent Design... But since you seem to think your darwnian myth is 'scientific' please tell me how you can KNOW that natural life is the result of common ancestry by means of mutation + natural selection as opposed to to being the product of a common creator? Oh, you have FAITH that it did? Well, as Dr Hunter states "religion drives science and it matters"
National Velour
DeleteIf they wanted to test their theory, why don't they take Behe's challenge?
Mainly because Behe's "challenge" is just a disingenuous bit of empty rhetoric that has nothing to do with any actual scientific discoveries. The scientific community is less than impressed with such sophomoric grandstanding.
Suppose we asked you to test your ID hypothesis by having your Designer poof up a whole new phylum or two of fauna while we wait? If it didn't happen you'd start making excuses like "He must be on holiday this week". Would that be a fair test?
The simple fact is, ToE has been tested a staggeringly large amount since its inception and passed with flying colors. New evidence has emerged over the years which sometimes changed our understanding of some details of the theory but the underlying ideas - variation filtered by selection with heritable traits carried forward - have withstood every test.
please tell me how you can KNOW that natural life is the result of common ancestry by means of mutation + natural selection as opposed to to being the product of a common creator?
We can never 'KNOW'. All we can do is show that such a Magic Designer is unnecessary. If you want people to accept your "Magic Designer Poofed It" hypothesis you need your own positive evidence.
nv,
DeleteAnd remember, they had told us for years that organic material cannot last more than 100,000 years MAXIMUM! Suddenly, that fact is now thrown out the window simply because it contradicts the darwinian timeline
Apparently not some people who do it for a living said that
"Angela Milner, a palaeontologist at the Natural History Museum in London told Chemistry World, 'The bones were mummified without being completely fossilized - it is nice to recover the preserved proteins. Although most organic material like DNA will not last more than around 30,000 years, collagens are very robust - I have seen them in specimens up to 130-million-years-old.'"
"In a parallel study, a team led by John Asara at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, US, analysed both the T. Rex samples and the bones of a 160,000-year-old extinct mastodon, an ancient relative of the elephant."
So it appears that some organic material can last quite a while given non mineralization, but since you accept this material is organic,what did they find?
"The scientists then compared the sequences with those found in modern day animals. 'The mastodon proteins matched living mammalian species like cows, elephants and dogs, whereas the T. Rex proteins matched chicken, newt and frog,' said Asara. 'By looking at this we can find chemical evidence showing that species such as birds have evolved from dinosaurs."
Now of course you disagree with the conclusion but it is consistent with the theory, as well as the previous predictions. So if a false prediction can falsify,a positive prediction should confirm.
Intelligent Design... But since you seem to think your darwnian myth is 'scientific' please tell me how you can KNOW that natural life is the result of common ancestry by means of mutation + natural selection as opposed to to being the product of a common creator?
DeleteIt is the best scientific explanation we have today, and design is unfalsifiable, after all a designer could use nature to create its designs . DrHunter says it is impossible to know what a sensible designer would do.
But we are talking science, what are the specifics of ID, what was designed ,when was it designed,how was it designed? These are scientific questions, how would one set up an experiment to test design?
What could falsify design? Certainly the appearance of the designer could falsify ToE
THorton:
DeleteLino:
Reading comprehension problem alert. They DON'T fit in. That's the point.
THorton:
PaV you knucklehead, if the empirically observed data doesn't fit Meyer's scenario then it's Meyer's scenario that's wrong, not empirically observed reality.
Apparently I have to lead you by the hand. I assumed you could fill in the blanks, but, no, you can't.
The "empirical" facts you pontificate about show discontinuities.
Bacterial life and eukaryotic life are discontinous.
Ediacaran life and Cambrian life are discontinuous.
This represents a whole host of problems for Darwinists, but fully supports Meyer's argument.
How much more thinking do I have to do for you? All of this should be obvious to you.
vel said:
DeleteApparently not some people who do it for a living said that
Well, THESE people said it:
http://tiny.cc/va1e9
http://tiny.cc/gdsx9
http://tiny.cc/kx10k
"Angela Milner, a palaeontologist at the Natural History Museum in London told Chemistry World, 'The bones were mummified without being completely fossilized - it is nice to recover the preserved proteins. Although most organic material like DNA will not last more than around 30,000 years, collagens are very robust - I have seen them in specimens up to 130-million-years-old.'"
Can you spot the circular reasoning, vel?? Did she REALLY spot them in samples 130 million years of age, or did she ASSUME the samples were that age, despite the evidence (collagen present) AGAINST that assumption?
"In a parallel study, a team led by John Asara at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, US, analysed both the T. Rex samples and the bones of a 160,000-year-old extinct mastodon, an ancient relative of the elephant."
So it appears that some organic material can last quite a while given non mineralization, but since you accept this material is organic,what did they find?
"The scientists then compared the sequences with those found in modern day animals. 'The mastodon proteins matched living mammalian species like cows, elephants and dogs, whereas the T. Rex proteins matched chicken, newt and frog,' said Asara. 'By looking at this we can find chemical evidence showing that species such as birds have evolved from dinosaurs."
Really? Well perhaps they should get together and get their stories straight.
Birds did not descend from dinosaurs, scientists claim after studying how our feathered friends move and breathe.
It has been known for decades that the femur, or thigh bone in birds is largely fixed making birds 'knee runners.'
But researchers from Oregon State University found the bone also stops their lung collapsing, allowing the breathing capacity for flight.
'It's amazing we didn't understand a basic aspect of bird biology,' said US researcher Professor John Ruben.
'A velociraptor did not just spout feathers at some point and fly off into the sunset.
'Birds probably evolved on a parallel path alongside dinosaurs, starting that process before most dinosaur species even existed.'
Full article here:
http://tinyurl.com/kw7dvr
You see vel, that's why the darwinian myth is a joke...it's not scientific and it's UNfalsifiable. Now they are claiming birds "probably evolved on a parallel path alongside dinosaurs..." The evidence contradicts one of evolution's sacred cows, so they just make up another excuse. UNfalsifiable. BTW, genetic similarity alone is not evidence
of common ancestry as opposed to a common Designer anymore than finding similar code in Windows 98 and Windows 8 means common ancestry as opposed to a common DESIGNER. Even Francis Collins acknowledges that because he admitted, the designer can re-use the same designs. The problem for darwinists is explaining how and where this vast, specifically complex genetic information came from. Information implies intelligence.
Now of course you disagree with the conclusion but it is consistent with the theory, as well as the previous predictions. So if a false prediction can falsify,a positive prediction should confirm.
Glad to hear you say that, vel. Remember when darwinists argued that most of our genome was 'junk' and therefore it was evidence blind random chance did it because an Intelligent Designer would not create us with so much 'junk'?
HOWEVER, thanks to the ENCODE project, we now know most of our genome is NOT junk, so that would be evidence for an Intelligent Designer, right? An I.D prediction confirmed!
BTW vel, why do you think darwinists are afraid to take Behe's challenge?
vel said:
DeleteIt is the best scientific explanation we have today, and design is unfalsifiable, after all a designer could use nature to create its designs . DrHunter says it is impossible to know what a sensible designer would do.
For me, the designer is GOD, so yes, it would be foolish of me to think I would know better than Him when it comes to how He created life. However, darwinists seem to think they know HIM really well and know what He would do or at least what He SHOULD do. The problem is, they are basing that on their false beliefs, not science. This is what they did with "junk DNA"...they started with an unproven assumption and declared it as 'fact' then used that false assumption as 'evidence' against the Designer...the only problem was, their assumption and 'evidence' was wrong and the 'junk' turned out to be very useful.
But we are talking science, what are the specifics of ID, what was designed ,when was it designed,how was it designed? These are scientific questions, how would one set up an experiment to test design?
You're confusing I.D with creation, much the same way you confused darwin's myth with science. I refer to myself as a Biblical creationist, not an I.D proponent per se because I DO name the designer and I DO claim that He created the universe and everything in it by His will. Can I prove this using a scientific experiment? No. Can you prove life is an accident and a result of mutations + natural selection? No.
I look at the evidence and deduce that only GOD satisfies all of it and only He could be the first cause. We ALL have our faith. Religion drives science, and it matters.
What could falsify design? Certainly the appearance of the designer could falsify ToE
Well, Jesus walked the earth and many seem HIM, I guess your darwinian myth is falsified, right? ;-)
As for what could falsify I.D:
It is falsifiable: any positive demonstration that CSI can easily be generated by non design mechanisms is a potential falsification of the ID theory.
What can falsify molecule to man evolution when everything in nature is attributed to it? Even when the evidence is completely OPPOSITE of what evolutionists expected to find, they declare evidence FOR their myth. They expected the kangaroo genome to be completely scrambled compared to ours because they assumed 150 million years of evolution had elapsed between us...but surprise, there were chunks of our genome sitting right in the kangaroo genome. So, had the genomes been completely different, that would have been a confirmed evolutionary prediction and evidence for their myth, yet the genomes showed remarkable similarity in places, and that's supposedly also evidence FOR their myth.
How is that scientific??? They have made it so nothing can refute it. That's not science. All they have to do is claim "we have more to learn about evolution"... UNfalsifiable.
nv,
DeleteFor me, the designer is GOD, so yes, it would be foolish of me to think I would know better than Him when it comes to how He created life
I agree if life can start anywhere without God, then the main argument for God is defeated. And I agree God is inscrutable. So how could you ever falsify design even theoretically by scientific methods? If not, it is immune to science.
Well, THESE people said it
Sort of
"It's been known for a long time that dinosaurs exhibit wonderful microstructural preservation," she says. "However, it's always been assumed that preservation does not extend to the cellular or molecular level."
She did not say predicted, nothing in the ToE predicts how long some organics will be preserved. But the findings independently supported the theory, so that does adds evidence which supports the theory. Sorry about your bad luck.
PaV Lino
DeleteBacterial life and eukaryotic life are discontinous.
Ediacaran life and Cambrian life are discontinuous.
No PaV, they're not. The fossil record from that long ago is discontinuous, not the lineages themselves. Some lineages aren't fully represented in the record, but some are.
This represents a whole host of problems for Darwinists, but fully supports Meyer's argument.
So it's your argument that that Designer started with single celled animals 3 billion years ago, than added multi-celled animals in the Ediacaran. Didn't like them so he killed most of them off, except for a few he let evolve into Cambrian forms. Those few must have been lonely so the Designer built some new animals in the Cambrian, but it took him 10-20 million years to do so. Then after the Cambrian what happened? What about the Great Ordovician Biodiversification? Did the Designer make all those species with distinct transitional histories just to fool us into thinking evolution happened?
As always you're a clueless idiot PaV, hand waving away the data you can't explain.
How much more thinking do I have to do for you?
Any thinking you do would be your first PaV.
THorton:
DeleteNo PaV, they're not. The fossil record from that long ago is discontinuous, not the lineages themselves. Some lineages aren't fully represented in the record, but some are.
Do you not have an ounce of brain?
Or are you just lying to yourself and others? Which is it?
As usual, Darwinists rely on what cannot be seen: "Darwin of [found only in] the Gaps."
Darwinists: "We don't see it. We can't test it. But believe us; we really know what we're talking about!"
I'm not that credulous. Nor is the vast majority of Americans.
Lino:
This represents a whole host of problems for Darwinists, but fully supports Meyer's argument.
Tommy:
So it's your argument that that Designer started with single celled animals 3 billion years ago, than added multi-celled animals in the Ediacaran. Didn't like them so he killed most of them off, except for a few he let evolve into Cambrian forms. Those few must have been lonely so the Designer built some new animals in the Cambrian, but it took him 10-20 million years to do so. Then after the Cambrian what happened? What about the Great Ordovician Biodiversification? Did the Designer make all those species with distinct transitional histories just to fool us into thinking evolution happened?
This is pure, uninformed supposition posing itself as some kind of theological objection to Creation.
Why not try being a scientist? Or is that not in you?
From a scientific point of view, life has all the hallmarks of what we know as 'design.' Just because it doesn't conform to your materialist point of view does not render the conclusion any less scientific.
Let's face it, without ad hominems, you'd be left with nothing to say.
PaV Lino
DeleteThis is pure, uninformed supposition posing itself as some kind of theological objection to Creation.
LOL! I keep asking for your explanation for the 3+ billion years' of empirically observed data, you keep crapping your pants and running away.
What are we suppose to think PaV when all you can do is brainlessly shout "Darwinism is ICKKY!!" When will you offer anything for an explanation beyond "MY GAWDDIDIT!!"?
From a scientific point of view, life has all the hallmarks of what we know as 'design.'
Only to dirt ignorant laymen like you PaV, not to the scientists who actually study and understand the topic. That's the part you just can't get over.
PaV Lino
DeleteThorton: "So it's your argument that that Designer started with single celled animals 3 billion years ago, than added multi-celled animals in the Ediacaran. Didn't like them so he killed most of them off, except for a few he let evolve into Cambrian forms. Those few must have been lonely so the Designer built some new animals in the Cambrian, but it took him 10-20 million years to do so. Then after the Cambrian what happened? What about the Great Ordovician Biodiversification? Did the Designer make all those species with distinct transitional histories just to fool us into thinking evolution happened?"
This is pure, uninformed supposition posing itself as some kind of theological objection to Creation.
Tell me which parts of the above narrative are wrong PaV, and what the correct narrative is. Don't forget your positive evidence.
I've only been asking you idiots for about 10 years now.
Vulgar, as always, THorton says:
DeleteLOL! I keep asking for your explanation for the 3+ billion years' of empirically observed data, you keep crapping your pants and running away.
And, as I have repeatedly told you--brain-dead moron that you are--these "empirically observed data" only serve to make the Darwinist explanation MORE non-sensical.
Here's my explanation of the "data": at some point (whether 1 bya, or 3bya, or somewhere in between, bacterial life began. At some point, maybe 580 mya, Ediacaran life began. Somewhere around 560mya, Cambrian life began.
That's my explanation. It's not a problem at all for ID; but it makes Darwinism look foolish.
As I pointed out in an earlier post here, you have a billion, trillion replications of bacteria, and NO transition to multi-cellular life. Why not? Isn't Darwinism RM + NS? Why didn't some of those million, trillion mutations do anything?
The "empirically observable data" negate Darwinian hypotheses, whereas from an ID perspective it simply means that only speculation is possible.
I'm not even going to go on from here, though, since arguing with you is like arguing with a 4-year-old. I'm not going to waste my time.
PaV Lino
DeleteHere's my explanation
LOL! That's some scientific explanation you've got there PaV. And you clowns still wonder why the scientific community sees you as IDiots.
"Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate explanation for the origin of information and circuitry necessary to build ... animals." Steven Meyers in Darwins Doubt pg 381.
ReplyDeleteThis merely pushes the problem unto an incomprehensible realm.
IOW, Meyers' "explanation" for information now in the genomes of organisms is that it was previously located in a designer. But then you have the same problem: how do you explain the presence of this same knowledge in your designer? Where was it previously located before then? In some other designer? And where was it previously located before then, etc.
Scott,
Delete"But then you have the same problem: how do you explain the presence of this same knowledge in your designer? Where was it previously located before then? In some other designer? And where was it previously located before then, etc."
This is really your argument, the monumentally fallacious infinite regression? Words fail me.
How is it fallacious to point out a designer doesn't actually solve the problem it purports to solve?
DeleteAgain, a designer that "just was", complete with the knowledge of how to build biological adaptations, already present, serves no explanatory purpose. This is because one could more efficient state that organisms "just appeared", complete with the knowledge of how to build biological adaptations, already present in their genome.
All you've done is push the problem up a level without improving it.
Furthermore, is you designer not well suited for designing organisms? Would it not be be purposeful by nature of your own claim that it designed organisms?
On the other hand, Darwinism is the theory that this same knowledge emerges from an error correcting process of genetic variation that is random *to any specific problem to solve* and natural selection. It genuinely was created over time, where it did not exist previously.
Scott,
Delete"Again, a designer that "just was", complete with the knowledge of how to build biological adaptations, already present, serves no explanatory purpose."
Would it serve an explanatory purpose if you claimed a designer for the designer? Obviously not, so what's the point of even bringing up the question?
"It genuinely was created over time, where it did not exist previously."
The same can be said for Beethoven's symphonies and the Taj Mahal, both of which came about via intelligent processes. Not some imaginary error correcting process which somehow magically knows what constitutes an error. I know you will now argue that which survives is not the error and that which perishes is.
The simple truth is, imagining some blind, indifferent, uncontrolled naturalistic process is somehow shaping and transforming life via random mutations and natural selection is worse than pushing the problem off to another level in that it denies the involvement of any intelligent source when the need for such involvement is painfully obvious in everything we accomplish. To argue an aimless, blind, naturalistic process is capable of producing far more advanced functioning, integrated systems than are intelligent beings is contrary to all common sense and experience.
Nic: Would it serve an explanatory purpose if you claimed a designer for the designer? Obviously not, so what's the point of even bringing up the question?
DeleteThe point is, positing a designer doesn't actually solve the problem it purports to solve.
Again, a designer that "just was", complete with the knowledge of how to build biological adaptations, already present, serves no explanatory purpose. This is because one could more efficient state that organisms "just appeared", complete with the knowledge of how to build biological adaptations, already present in their genome.
Neither serve an explanatory purpose. And no, the later isn't Darwinism.
IOW, unless you explain how this knowledge was created in your designer, you're essentially saying it "just was", complete with that knowledge, already present, But if such an explanation isn't necessary for this knowledge, we could more efficiently state that organisms "just appeared", complete with that knowledge already present in their genomes, and do without the designer all together.
Scott: On the other hand, Darwinism is the theory that this same knowledge emerges from an error correcting process of genetic variation that is random *to any specific problem to solve* and natural selection. It genuinely was created over time, where it did not exist previously.
Nic: The same can be said for Beethoven's symphonies and the Taj Mahal, both of which came about via intelligent processes.
Human beings are not abstract designers with no defined limitations. Nor does the term "intelligent processes" refer to some kind of irreducible primitive. We have good explanations for how human beings create knowledge. Under the current crop of ID, we can only learn more about what the designer supposedly designed, not learn more about the designer.
Nic: The simple truth is, imagining some blind, indifferent, uncontrolled naturalistic process is somehow shaping and transforming life via random mutations and natural selection is worse than pushing the problem off to another level in that it denies the involvement of any intelligent source when the need for such involvement is painfully obvious in everything we accomplish.
Nic, the key words are "we accomplish" and "source".
First, to say we accomplish something implies that we exhibit intent and have goals. Intelligence is required to have goals. However, it's not clear that the features of biological organisms were actually intended goals. If you assume this in the case of the biosphere, then you're begging the question that the biosphere was designed in the first place.
Second, knowledge is either true or false. That's it. Where that knowledge came from is irrelevant as to whether it actually solves problems. The knowledge in a genome's of biological organisms either plays a role in getting itself copied into future generations or it doesn't.
You're objection to evolutionary theory is that you hold the idea that knowledge in specific spheres comes from authoritative sources. Since natural process are not authoritative sources, Darwinism couldn't possible be the source of that knowledge.
Scott:
ReplyDeletePeople use information to build cars and stuff. Where was the information before it went into the car? Was it in the designer head? Was it in another dimension? Was it in the designers head after he/she though of it, and someplace else before? Does an inability to explain where information lives mean that it doesn't exist?
Hey bigot, why don't you define 'information' as you're using the term. Be as precise as possible.
DeleteSine I'm responding to Scott's post I guess I'll use whatever definition Scott is using.
DeleteTheo Wikipedia definition seems adequate, too.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Deletenatschuster the lying homophobic bigot
DeleteSine I'm responding to Scott's post I guess I'll use whatever definition Scott is using.
I didn't ask Scott for the definition, I asked you.
Theo Wikipedia definition seems adequate
Exactly as expected, the bigot can't supply the definition of information as he's using the term. The Wiki article has about a half dozen different ones, each applicable to a different area of inquiry.
Should I pick one for you bigot? Or will you finally grow a spine and commit to one definition?
First, knowledge, as I'm using it here, is useful information that tends to remain when embedded in a storage medium. This includes books, computers, brains, etc.
DeleteSecond, before this knowledge was in a designer's brain, it often was previously located in some other storage medium. And, before then, this knowledge started out as a guess, which was then criticized and errors were discarded. In the case of science, this includes empirical tests. Due to the problem of induction, we cannot induce theories from observations. They are not "out there" for us to observe
So, as with evolution, human knowledge emerges from an error correcting process. In the case of people, we can intentionally conjecture explanatory theories that are designed to solve specific problem. And, unlike evolution, our theories can die in our place.
For example, we do not have to put actual people in car safety tests. We can use crash test dummies that are based on explanations about how the world works, including how people are injured, react to impacts, etc.
Scott:
DeleteWhen human perform trial and error tests, they record, or at least memorize the tests that failed. This way,they don't repeat them. Evolution does not record or remember the failed test, so there is nothing stopping it from repeating the same errors over and over. In fact, often, the same bad mutation happens to organisms over and over.
Nat,
DeleteEvolution does not record or remember the failed test, so there is nothing stopping it from repeating the same errors over and over. In fact, often, the same bad mutation happens to organisms over and over.
The genetic makeup changes with every iteration. Combined with the fact what may be not good in one enviroment is good in another, the target and the population are not static.
Nat: Evolution does not record or remember the failed test, so there is nothing stopping it from repeating the same errors over and over.
DeleteScott: First, knowledge, as I'm using it here, is useful information that tends to remain when embedded in a storage medium. This includes books, computers, brains, etc.
This also includes the knowledge that tends to remain in the genomes of biological organisms.
Thorton:
ReplyDelete"I didn't ask Scott for the definition, I asked you."
I know that. I responded by saying that since I'm responding to Scott's post we can use Scott's definition. If you want to know Scott's definition, I think you the most likely way for you to find out is to ask Scott.
"Should I pick one for you bigot? Or will you finally grow a spine and commit to one definition?"
Feel free to pick any and all. Knock yourself out. Why shoul di stick to one, anyway, when the expers have more than one?
natschuster the lying homophobic bigot
ReplyDeleteThorton: "I didn't ask Scott for the definition, I asked you."
I know that. I responded by saying that since I'm responding to Scott's post we can use Scott's definition.
I know. You cowardly avoided making a commitment and sloughed off the responsibility for your own posting, just like you always do.
Feel free to pick any and all. Knock yourself out. Why shoul di stick to one, anyway, when the expers have more than one?
There's more than one definition because the concept changes with the context used. Why does it not surprise me you're too dumb to get that?
OK, I'll pick "Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns. In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate, the pattern. Consider, for example, DNA. The sequence of nucleotides is a pattern that influences the formation and development of an organism without any need for a conscious mind."
Under that definition the observed natural processes that produce genetic variation (i.e gene duplication with point mutations, frame shifts, etc.) produce new information. As Scott has already pointed out, this natural process (genetic variation filtered by selection) of continually adding new information to a genome has been going on for over 3 billion years.
So much for your "evolution can't produce new information" stupidity.
Are you sure you read my post? I didn't sy that you need intelligence to make information. Scott was asking where information lived before it was put in the DNA. I suggested that they same question could be asked about information humans use.
Deletecornelius said:
ReplyDelete"The "truth about science" in this context is that evolution is not a fact. This is plainly obvious in spite of the evolutionists' insistence to the contrary."
cornelius, what is your definition of "evolution"?
Question is were there ever simple, less developed organisms? No!
ReplyDeleteWhen checking a monad we find all the components of that single cell of same complexity than modern human organism.
Agreed, a monad is a light version. But basically all functions of a so called complex organism are there in minute form.
So this is another illusion to talk of primitive forms of life. Nothing is primitive. Every living cell is of same complexity.
vel said:
ReplyDeleteI agree if life can start anywhere without God, then the main argument for God is defeated. And I agree God is inscrutable. So how could you ever falsify design even theoretically by scientific methods? If not, it is immune to science.
I gave you the answer from UNcommon Descent. Did you even read it? It was in bold
So how can we falsify the darwinian myth when anything that occurs in nature is attributed to it???
Sort of
"It's been known for a long time that dinosaurs exhibit wonderful microstructural preservation," she says. "However, it's always been assumed that preservation does not extend to the cellular or molecular level."
She did not say predicted, nothing in the ToE predicts how long some organics will be preserved. But the findings independently supported the theory, so that does adds evidence which supports the theory. Sorry about your bad luck.
My my my...is that all you got left? ;-)
From the link I gave you earlier:
Up until recently, it was believed that proteins could not survive beyond 100,000 years, however scientists from North Carolina State University in Raleigh have found fragments of this biological workforce in the 80 million year old remains of the duck-billed dinosaur Brachylophosaurus canadensis.
Previously the same scientists found protein fragments in a thighbone of the much cooler and more famous Tyrannosarus rex species, however there was some dispute about whether the find was genuine or whether some other protein source had contaminated the samples. The scientists have now taken steps to address this, and this time, have hopefully proven beyond doubt that they have isolated genuine dino-protein.
Notice how they retain the UNsupported belief as to when dinsoaurs roamed the earth as opposed to say, letting the data (proteins present in specimens) dictate that? But then again, darwin's myth was never concerned with science.
Also:
"It has always been assumed that preservation of [dinosaur bones] does not extend to the cellular and molecular level," said co-author Mary Schweitzer, from North Carolina State University in Raleigh, US.
"The pathways of cellular decay are well known for modern organisms. And extrapolations predict that all organics are going to be gone completely in 100,000 years, maximum."
Funny how they abandon that well-supported fact when it contradicts their darwinian myth's timeline, isn't it?
nv,
DeleteI gave you the answer from UNcommon Descent. Did you even read it? It was in bold
It is falsifiable: any positive demonstration that CSI can easily be generated by non design mechanisms is a potential falsification of the ID theory.
First there is no valid metric of csi, second why " easily", and even then that is not a falsification, only a possible one if some unstated other conditions are met.
The problem is one could never know with an omnipotent designer that a non design mechanism generated anything, angels could be pushing the planets around, gravity may not exist. One can never know that a supernatural cause is not at work
Darwinian evolution falsification?, produce scientific evidence of a specific designer, the birth of a child with completely novel and incompatible form of DNA would go a long way, or perhaps a decipher message in the DNA
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deletenv,
DeleteNotice how they retain the UNsupported belief as to when dinsoaurs roamed the earth as opposed to say, letting the data (proteins present in specimens) dictate that? But then again, darwin's myth was never concerned with science.
Sorry I did not see your point before,you believe that dating fossils is in error, So I gather you believe that fossils are less than 100,000 yrs? Then your beef is with geology and physics and chemistry as well.
"The pathways of cellular decay are well known for modern organisms. And extrapolations predict that all organics are going to be gone completely in 100,000 years, maximum."
If science is so faulty why do you believe this is accurate? This extrapolation uses the same forms of dating as those of the dinos. Same chemistry ,same geology, same physics as you questioned as inaccurate.
Well, Jesus walked the earth and many seem HIM, I guess your darwinian myth is falsified, right? ;-)
Then who designed all those people before he was born? Is he is designing now? Any examples?
For any of you IDiots who still think that 'CSI' is a valid argument for 'design', I suggest that you go to theskepticalzone.com and read all the threads about CSI.
Delete'CSI' is deader than the proverbial dead horse.
NV, did all species, individuals, and populations of the life forms (animals, plants, etc.) that are labeled by scientists as 'prehistoric', including but not limited to 'dinosaurs', live within the last 6 thousand years?
ReplyDeleteDid people mingle with, ride, raise, farm, and/or eat dinosaurs? Did people eat trilobites, ammonoids, and mammal-like reptiles? Did a person ever see a living archaeopteryx, dimetrodon, or oxyaena?
Were people ever eaten by dinosaurs, marine reptiles, flying reptiles, creodont carnivores, or large ammonoids?
Were pairs of all prehistoric species of animals, fungi, and plants on the ark?
Why aren't T-Rexes, brachiosaurs, pteranodons, ammonoids, trilobites, brontotheres, elasmosaurs, carnivorous kangaroos, and dragonflies with 28 inch wingspans still around?
vel said:
ReplyDeleteFirst there is no valid metric of csi, second why " easily", and even then that is not a falsification, only a possible one if some unstated other conditions are met.
All they have to do is take Behe's challenge. Behe himself stated:
Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments.
Now let’s turn that around and ask, How do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterial flagellum? If that same scientist went into the lab and knocked out the bacterial flagellum genes, grew the bacterium for a long time, and nothing much happened, well, he’d say maybe we didn’t start with the right bacterium, maybe we didn’t wait long enough, maybe we need a bigger population, and it would be very much more difficult to falsify the Darwinian hypothesis.
Also, if you didn't know better, would you believe it if someone told you the faces on Mt Rushmore were made solely by the elements? Why not?
The problem is one could never know with an omnipotent designer that a non design mechanism generated anything, angels could be pushing the planets around, gravity may not exist. One can never know that a supernatural cause is not at work.
God is not trying to trick or deceive us, vel. In fact, without God we would have no hope of being able to comprehend the universe and everything in it because we would have no reasonable expectation that anything should make sense if everything (including our brains) are merely the result of chance. We have an expectation that the physical laws will make sense to us because they come from an intelligent designer.
Sorry I did not see your point before,you believe that dating fossils is in error, So I gather you believe that fossils are less than 100,000 yrs? Then your beef is with geology and physics and chemistry as well.
No, my beef is with the biased interpretations of certain scientists. For example, if dinosaur samples could be carbon dated, would you accept the dates produced?
If science is so faulty why do you believe this is accurate? This extrapolation uses the same forms of dating as those of the dinos. Same chemistry ,same geology, same physics as you questioned as inaccurate.
Because we KNOW degradation occurs, vel.
Here's the problem though, how do you what factors may have affected a sample in the past? How do you "know" dinosaurs died out 70 million years ago when the hard evidence (pardon the pun) shows soft proteins/organics still present and contradicts that timeline??
You see, darwinists start with their myth, then either accept or reject data based on that myth. The myth comes before science. The data is cherry-picked, circular reasoning is used and when all else fails, they attack their opponents hoping to mock and intimidate them into silence. What other alleged 'scientific theory' needs such protections from scientists?
Then who designed all those people before he was born? Is he is designing now? Any examples?
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 1:1,3,14
Where did the specifically complex, information-rich genetic code come from, vel? Information comes from a mind....not blind, random chance.
nv,
DeleteGod is not trying to trick or deceive us, vel. In fact, without God we would have no hope of being able to comprehend the universe and everything in it because we would have no reasonable expectation that anything should make sense if everything (including our brains) are merely the result of chance
Prove it. Why assume we are significant in a diety's plan?
Because we KNOW degradation occurs, vel.
DeleteWhy is 100,000 years acceptable, then?
No, my beef is with the biased interpretations of certain scientists. For example, if dinosaur samples could be carbon dated, would you accept the dates produced?
If I produced a thermometer than only went to 30 degrees would you accept it was 30 degrees outside if it read 30 degrees? Our increase in knowledge about the world is a reflection of our better tools extending our perceptions.
Since the Rex was dating was based on accepted geology and chemistry and physics, it is not a few, it is the overwhelming majority.
nv,
DeleteThe data is cherry-picked, circular reasoning is used and when all else fails, they attack their opponents hoping to mock and intimidate them into silence. What other alleged 'scientific theory' needs such protections from scientists?
First to be taken seriously you have to produce science, Einstein replaced Newton by science. Scientists require positive proof to replace an existing theory. What they don't like is teaching non science as science.
I found this about c14 dating dinosaurs:
Deletehttp://www.sciencevsevolution.org/Holzschuh.htm
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”
DeleteThis drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science.
natschuster the lying homophobic bigot
DeleteI found this about c14 dating dinosaurs:
LOL! I especially liked the part where 4 different samples taken from the same hadrosaur bone were dated from 2560 +/- 70 years to 25,670 +/- 220 years, over 20,000 years difference.
Really believable reliable results by the Creationist there bigot.
Thorton:
DeleteI'm not sure what your point is.
Anyway, here is something about mosasaurs.
http://www.icr.org/article/6084/
I'm begining to see a pattern here.
natschuster the lying homophobic bigot
DeleteI'm begining to see a pattern here.
We've seen your pattern for years bigot. Post some brainless Creationist crap you found on the web, ignore the huge errors that are pointed out to you. Refuse to read any scientific papers with refuting data presented to you. Lie and claim you read them, then lie and say they have no evidence against your Creationist stupidity.
Same pattern as always with you bigot.
NV,
ReplyDeleteWell, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum
This assumes that the flagellum is the teleos of the organism, that evolution will always turn out the same way. How long would be reasonable for this experiment? A week,year, 100 years, 1000years?
If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments.
Apart from the " as I understand it " disclaimer ,this would not falsify ID. What is the mechanism used by the designer per ID ? The appearance of the flagellum could be a designer at work. How could one know that a supernatural being for its own reasons did not cause the flagellum to reappear? You cannot falsify any theory which allows divine participation.
nv,
ReplyDeleteIf that same scientist went into the lab and knocked out the bacterial flagellum genes, grew the bacterium for a long time, and nothing much happened, well, he’d say maybe we didn’t start with the right bacterium
Nothing much? If anything happens then evolution would be observed, and yes the fictional scientist would say that without knowing initial conditions expecting the same result is unwarranted.But google Joe Throton he works with reconstruction ancient proteins
But you want to falsify ToE, first provide a scientific theory, a mechanism, a time frame,specific predictions, an actual designer would go a long way.
nv,
ReplyDeleteAlso, if you didn't know better, would you believe it if someone told you the faces on Mt Rushmore were made solely by the elements? Why not?
If you had never seen a human face before? If you have no idea what natural processes are capable of? Not knowing those things you would look for signs of known mechanisms or tool marks.
veli said:
ReplyDeleteThis assumes that the flagellum is the teleos of the organism, that evolution will always turn out the same way. How long would be reasonable for this experiment? A week,year, 100 years, 1000years?
THAT'S why darwin's myth is UNfalisifbale....as Behe said they can always claim not enough time has elapsed. The point is, IF the flagellum did evolve, it would be positive evidence for evolutionists and would show Behe et al were incorrect. The fact darwinists are not chomping at the bit to run this experiment is extremely telling.
BTW, how man times do evolutionists claim eyes evolved??
Apart from the " as I understand it " disclaimer ,this would not falsify ID. What is the mechanism used by the designer per ID ? The appearance of the flagellum could be a designer at work. How could one know that a supernatural being for its own reasons did not cause the flagellum to reappear? You cannot falsify any theory which allows divine participation.
It would falsify I.D as Behe et al proclaim it because you would have specifically complex genetic information coming into existence.
I'm not an I.D expert (as I mentioned I'm a creationist) but as far as I know, they believe the designer created life with certain abilities to adapt and vary to many situations - aka front loading. If the genes are missing from the organism/species, and they evolve, then darwinists would have something concrete to finally crow about. Like I said, the fact they're not taking Behe's challenge is very telling.
Nothing much? If anything happens then evolution would be observed, and yes the fictional scientist would say that without knowing initial conditions expecting the same result is unwarranted.But google Joe Throton he works with reconstruction ancient proteins
But you want to falsify ToE, first provide a scientific theory, a mechanism, a time frame,specific predictions, an actual designer would go a long way.
You misunderstand what they mean by 'evolution' Nobody disputes changes to the gene pool occur over time, what we dispute is the faith-based belief that blind random chance can create specifically complex information. We don't accept such things in any other area of life, why accept with darwin's myth?
I.D doesn't name the designer because it's not about religion, it's about science. They can't subject the designer to scientific experiments, unlike darwinists who seem to think they can subject the very distant past to such things. What they CAN do is study living organisms and determine that they show signs of design, much the same way Windows 7 shows signs of design, or the faces on Mt Rushmore show signs of design.
If you had never seen a human face before? If you have no idea what natural processes are capable of? Not knowing those things you would look for signs of known mechanisms or tool marks.
No, I'm talking about today. If you didn't know the history, would you believe the elements alone carved the faces or were they created by an intelligent designer? Now ask yourself why you abandon that logic and reasoning when it comes to something even MORE specifically complex, like LIFE on earth?
NV,
DeleteTHAT'S why darwin's myth is UNfalisifbale....as Behe said they can always claim not enough time has elapsed. The point is, IF the flagellum did evolve, it would be positive evidence for evolutionists and would show Behe et al were incorrect. The fact darwinists are not chomping at the bit to run this experiment is extremely telling.
Yes, I see the researcher trying to get the grant....
Researcher.. "I need a vast sum of money to run an experiment to fasify ID it may need to run for 50 to 1,000 yrs and even in the end it may only possibly falsify it."
Rich Evolutionist... "Sign me up, and pass the infant"
nv,
DeleteIt would falsify I.D as Behe et al proclaim it because you would have specifically complex genetic information coming into existence.
But you could not eliminate it being created by a designer,especially a designer using nature as a tool.
I'm not an I.D expert (as I mentioned I'm a creationist) but as far as I know, they believe the designer created life with certain abilities to adapt and vary to many situations - aka front loading. If the genes are missing from the organism/species, and they evolve, then darwinists would have something concrete to finally crow about. Like I said, the fact they're not taking Behe's challenge is very telling.
Maybe you are right, Behe should do it to prove his position, that would lend support for his theory.After all even Einstein needed empirical support to supersede Newton. You should write him.
But let's talk creationism, a few parameters.... How old is the universe, earth and man. And more importantly,why didn't God create a vegetable that tastes like bacon?
Nv,
DeleteYou misunderstand what they mean by 'evolution'
Ch says, observed evolution is not a fact, which meaning is h using?
Nobody disputes changes to the gene pool occur over time, what we dispute is the faith-based belief that blind random chance can create specifically complex information
Then you don't want to falsify the whole ToE, just the random part. Maybe the problem is the designer made it look like it is random with regardless to fitness. It does make you wonder why species go extinct with the control of mutations being guided.
Yes, I see the researcher trying to get the grant....
ReplyDeleteResearcher.. "I need a vast sum of money to run an experiment to fasify ID it may need to run for 50 to 1,000 yrs and even in the end it may only possibly falsify it."
Rich Evolutionist... "Sign me up, and pass the infant"
I overestimated you. Anyway, perhaps darwinists could use the money they spend on 'Darwin Day' celebrations....you know, to worship Darwin and remind everyone how darwinism is NOT a religion - praise darwin! ;-)
But you could not eliminate it being created by a designer,especially a designer using nature as a tool.
Behe said it would...it's not like he's a darwinist who can revise his previous statements whenever the evidence falsifies one of darwinism's predictions. Yet for some reason, darwinists are afraid to take Behe's challenge.
Maybe you are right, Behe should do it to prove his position, that would lend support for his theory.After all even Einstein needed empirical support to supersede Newton. You should write him.
Prove his position by showing that the flagellum did not evolve???? WOW! Did you even read what Behe wrote?
Now let’s turn that around and ask, How do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterial flagellum? If that same scientist went into the lab and knocked out the bacterial flagellum genes, grew the bacterium for a long time, and nothing much happened, well, he’d say maybe we didn’t start with the right bacterium, maybe we didn’t wait long enough, maybe we need a bigger population, and it would be very much more difficult to falsify the Darwinian hypothesis.
That's why Behe can't do it, darwinists would just claim it needs more time or that it did evolve in the past and just because it didn't evolve in the experiment doesn't mean it didn't do so many eons ago. UNfalsifiable.
The fact darwinists are afraid to take Behe's challenge speaks volumes! :-)
But let's talk creationism, a few parameters.... How old is the universe, earth and man. And more importantly,why didn't God create a vegetable that tastes like bacon?
You forgot to answer my earlier question: How many times do evolutionists claim eyes evolved?? I
Also, if you didn't know the history, would you believe at this time, that the elements alone carved the faces on Mt Rushmore or believe they were created by an intelligent designer?
Now ask yourself why you abandon that logic and reasoning when it comes to something even MORE specifically complex, like LIFE on earth.
National Velour
DeleteVel: "But you could not eliminate it being created by a designer,especially a designer using nature as a tool."
Behe said it would
Behe is wrong. You can never falsify the idea that a super-powerful entity wasn't manipulating the laws of nature to produce desired results. That's why ID as it's currently proposed cannot be falsified, and why isn't science.
ToE however is quite falsifiable. Just show that the phylogenetic nested hierarchy created from the fossil record is vastly discordant with the one created from the genetic record. Or show multiple phyla each with its own unique and incomparable form of DNA. Either of those discoveries would falsify the current ToE completely. You seem to be yet another Creationist who doesn't understand the difference between not falsifiable and not falsified.
Yet for some reason, darwinists are afraid to take Behe's challenge.
Why are IDists afraid to take the thorton challenge? Have your Designer poof up a whole new phylum or two of fauna while we wait. If the Designer did it before, why can't she do it again?
How many times do evolutionists claim eyes evolved?
The evidence shows that vision, defined as the ability to detect and respond to certain wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum, has arisen at least 50 times in the last 530 million years. Why is that a surprise? Being able to detect and gain knowledge from the most common form of energy in the ecosystem is a huge advantage. Lots of lineages have hit upon the trait independently. The key thing to note is that each came up with its own unique solution.
Now you answer a question - Why did your Designer have to come up with so many different designs for eyes?
Nv,
ReplyDeleteI overestimated you. Anyway, perhaps darwinists could use the money they spend on 'Darwin Day' celebrations....you know, to worship Darwin and remind everyone how darwinism is NOT a religion - praise darwin! ;-)
I thought it ,while a bit heavy handed ,made the point. So the Fourth of July and President's Day are religious,as well? Can a Christian have two religions?
Behe said it would...it's not like he's a darwinist who can revise his previous statements whenever the evidence falsifies one of darwinism's predictions. Yet for some reason, darwinists are afraid to take Behe's challenge.
If you are wrong,revising your previous statements is wise. Behe is incorrect and you know it. Do natural causes result in rain? If no, then anything we think is natural could be caused by god and Behe in incorrect.
If yes, then Can god cause it to rain? Yes of course. Then tell me how to tell the difference between natural and god made rain? If you can't Behe is incorrect.
Why doesn't Behe do it? He say you need "x" and here's how you prove it. He needs the positive evidence, falsifying ToE doesn't prove ID.He needs to prove ID. Of course first ID needs to actually be a scientific theory.
velikovskys
DeleteOf course first ID needs to actually be a scientific theory.
Correction. First ID needs to actually be a testable and falsifiable scientific hypothesis.
ID hasn't even gotten that far yet. Right now it's nothing more than philosophical speculation.
True, both are equally likely
DeleteThat's why Behe can't do it, darwinists would just claim it needs more time or that it did evolve in the past and just because it didn't evolve in the experiment doesn't mean it didn't do so many eons ago. UNfalsifiable.
ReplyDeleteIf you are saying it is a worthless challenge I agree, it doesn't prove ID ,it doesn't prove ToE, it doesn't disprove ID and it doesn't disprove ToE no matter what the outcome. As long as supernatural forces are both unpredictable and undetctable by science.
nv,
ReplyDeleteYou forgot to answer my earlier question: How many times do evolutionists claim eyes evolved?? I
How many?
Also, if you didn't know the history, would you believe at this time, that the elements alone carved the faces on Mt Rushmore or believe they were created by an intelligent designer?
If you didn't know what the elements were capable of? If not here is the logic
1 natural forces( erosion)could not create the specified complexity of Mt Rushmore.
2. Life has specified complexity
3. Natural forces( the ToE) cannot cause the diversity of life.
Number 3 is an unsupported assertion, unless erosion is the same natural force as the ToE. And rock and living things are equivalent.
vel said
ReplyDeleteI thought it ,while a bit heavy handed ,made the point. So the Fourth of July and President's Day are religious,as well? Can a Christian have two religions?
Unlike darwinism, they are actually something to celebrate, independence, freedom etc...unless you think being told you're an accident of nature without intrinsic value or purpose and not superior to maggots or bacteria is something to 'celebrate'
If you are wrong,revising your previous statements is wise. Behe is incorrect and you know it. Do natural causes result in rain? If no, then anything we think is natural could be caused by god and Behe in incorrect. If yes, then Can god cause it to rain? Yes of course. Then tell me how to tell the difference between natural and god made rain? If you can't Behe is incorrect.
No, the physical laws and elements which cause rain come from GOD....unless you can prove that everything natural was created from nothing, which would render science obsolete. Laws imply a lawgiver.
Why doesn't Behe do it? He say you need "x" and here's how you prove it. He needs the positive evidence, falsifying ToE doesn't prove ID.He needs to prove ID. Of course first ID needs to actually be a scientific theory.
Ummm, let me get this straight: You want him to conduct an experiment which he believes will show the flagellum not evolving only so he can be told by darwinists that he didn't give it enough time?!?! Did you even read Behe's argument about why the darwinian myth is UNfalsifiable? It's YOUR side that needs to provide the evidence for their darwinian myth vel. The fact they are afraid to take Behe's challenge is very telling.
If you are saying it is a worthless challenge I agree, it doesn't prove ID ,it doesn't prove ToE, it doesn't disprove ID and it doesn't disprove ToE no matter what the outcome. As long as supernatural forces are both unpredictable and undetctable by science.
I honestly hope you're being deliberately obtuse. Let me give you an example of why your argument is absurd: Prove the law of non-contradiction has never been falsified. Now, if I claimed it HAS been falsified, wouldn't it make more sense for me to simply present it and show that it can happen? So why are darwinists afraid to prove their claim that the flagellum evolved by refusing to take Behe's challenge?
How many?
I'm asking you since you claimed earlier that just because the flagellum evolved once doesn't mean it would evolve again. So, how many times did eyes/vision allegedly evolve?
If you didn't know what the elements were capable of? If not here is the logic
1 natural forces( erosion)could not create the specified complexity of Mt Rushmore.
2. Life has specified complexity
3. Natural forces( the ToE) cannot cause the diversity of life.
Number 3 is an unsupported assertion, unless erosion is the same natural force as the ToE. And rock and living things are equivalent.
You missed the point. Technically, the elements COULD create specifically complex faces on mountains and a tornado going through a junkyard COULD technically reassemble a dismantled 747...but the mathematical odds are so great against such things occurring, that we reject them as impossible.
So, why do you not apply the same logic to life in the universe which is much more specifically complex than the other things mentioned?
Don't you see how it and everything else in the universe (including its precise fine-tuning) points to a designer?
National Valium
DeleteI'm asking you since you claimed earlier that just because the flagellum evolved once doesn't mean it would evolve again. So, how many times did eyes/vision allegedly evolve?
Before you make yourself look any dumber you should be aware that there are at least three different types of flagella known to science with dozens of known variations across different species. Exactly like there are multiple dozens of different variants of eyes that have evolved.
Now tell us why your Magic designer had to come up with so many different eyes, and so many different flagella variants for bacteria to move about?
Before you make yourself look any dumber you should be aware that there are at least three different types of flagella known to science with dozens of known variations across different species
DeleteThat is just showing off.
nv,
DeleteYou missed the point. Technically, the elements COULD create specifically complex faces on mountains and a tornado going through a junkyard COULD technically reassemble a dismantled 747
So logic is then this
1 A natural force( erosion) given enough time will create a exact copy of Mt Rushmore
Sorry I disagree with your first premise, erosion is a process, it may be impossible given physical laws for that to occur.
...but the mathematical odds are so great against such things occurring, that we reject them as impossible.
How would one calculate such odds? You see as the faces erode,the surrounding mountains are eroding too. As it is the faces require maintenance, you need to prove it is possible at all.
2. It is impossible for a natural force( erosion) to carve Mt Rushmore given the present laws of nature.
3. Therefore, a natural force( ToE) cannot create the faces on Mt Rushmore. Yes I agree.
Because that is the only valid conclusion I can think of.
nv,
DeleteSo, why do you not apply the same logic to life in the universe which is much more specifically complex than the other things mentioned?
But it is not the same logic, all natural causes are not the same process. The Grand Canyon is far more complex than Mt Rushmore and erosion caused that. You are specifying a particular target, and calculating the odds.
What are the odds that erosion could erode the exact structure of the present day Grand Canyon? Greater than Mt Rushmore, but so small you could consider it impossible.
Now given the geology of the surrounding area what are the odds that there would be a canyon there, a non specific canyon? I would guess better than fifty percent.
Evolution is non specific,as well. It wasn't aiming at anything.
Don't you see how it and everything else in the universe (including its precise fine-tuning) points to a designer?
Yes, I see how it does but Intuition is notoriously fallible.
I also see how a designed world is more comforting, someone is driving the bus.
That is why I would guess we would probably invent a God even if there wasn't one. Combined with the fact not a big fan of an anthropomorphic diety, it just seems too comprehensible.
nv
DeleteUnlike darwinism, they are actually something to celebrate, independence, freedom etc...
But you said it was religious to celebrate a birthday of someone,didn't you?
unless you think being told you're an accident of nature without intrinsic value or purpose
I guess I am weird but that whole accident thing makes me feel like I won the consciousness lottery. It makes it more valuable. As for purpose, I have enough chores to keep me busy for a lifetime.
and not superior to maggots or bacteria is something to 'celebrate'
Man needs bacteria to survive, they don't need us. They have us beat on seniority by about 3 billion years as well. It is possible we were designed just to transport bacteria from place to place.
As for celebrating, I prefer Pi (3/14) Day for obvious reasons. Make mine pumpkin.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete
Deletenv,
I honestly hope you're being deliberately obtuse. Let me give you an example of why your argument is absurd: Prove the law of non-contradiction has never been falsified
Since it seems to have been violated at the quantum level,that would be a foolish challenge.
Now, if I claimed it HAS been falsified, wouldn't it make more sense for me to simply present it and show that it can happen?
Except that is exactly what I am asking Behe to do, if the flagellum is designed, conduct an experiment to show it.
Just as evolution cannot not prove design false by showing things can evolve. Especially if one postulates an undetectable designer. It can only,assuming no divine shenanigans, prove the mechanisms exist.
Showing Newton theory is flawed does not prove Einstein's theory correct, he had to have positive evidence,the bending of light, to supersede Newton.
You claim you are a better baseball hitter than me, you propose that I face a pitcher and see if how many hits I get, I get zero, you claim you proved you are a better hitter since I got no hits. Are you?
So why are darwinists afraid to prove their claim that the flagellum evolved by refusing to take Behe's challenge?
Because it is a bogus test,which even if the flagellum appeared does not eliminate design. It also assumes evolution needs a flagellum, and must create one in its absence. The flagellum is not the target of evolution. How long were bacteria around until the first appearance of a flagellum?
One last example,flip it around, evolutionists says the flagellum evolved, Behe says it must be designed, evolutionist says knock out the flagellum and see if the designer creates a new one, no flagellum occurs in five years. Does it disprove evolution or design?
Deletevel said: So logic is then this
ReplyDelete1 A natural force( erosion) given enough time will create a exact copy of Mt Rushmore
Sorry I disagree with your first premise, erosion is a process, it may be impossible given physical laws for that to occur.
No, that's not what I said. I said technically, the elements alone COULD have created the faces on Mt Rushmore, but logic and common sense would prevail and tell us they DIDN'T.
Secondly, why would it be impossible for erosion to occur at the right places to carve out the faces? Because they show specified complexity, right?
Why don't you use that same logic to deduce it would be impossible for blind, random chance to create life?
How would one calculate such odds? You see as the faces erode,the surrounding mountains are eroding too. As it is the faces require maintenance, you need to prove it is possible at all.
2. It is impossible for a natural force( erosion) to carve Mt Rushmore given the present laws of nature.
3. Therefore, a natural force( ToE) cannot create the faces on Mt Rushmore. Yes I agree.
Because that is the only valid conclusion I can think of.
That's my point: Specified complexity proves the odds are too great against the elements alone carving those faces. So once again, why do you reject that logic when it comes to blind random chance (elements) creating life which is much more specifically complex??
But it is not the same logic, all natural causes are not the same process. The Grand Canyon is far more complex than Mt Rushmore and erosion caused that. You are specifying a particular target, and calculating the odds.
Really? What makes the grand canyon 'specifically complex'?
What are the odds that erosion could erode the exact structure of the present day Grand Canyon? Greater than Mt Rushmore, but so small you could consider it impossible.
Now given the geology of the surrounding area what are the odds that there would be a canyon there, a non specific canyon? I would guess better than fifty percent
The odds are great considering that it's just a big hole. Where's the specified complexity? If the faces on Mt Rushmore were carved in the grand canyon walls, would you then believe random chance created them? See the difference?
.Evolution is non specific,as well. It wasn't aiming at anything.
DeleteWhich is why specified complexity (in living organisms) is evidence AGAINST evolution, veli. Now you see where I.D uses science and logic to make that determination, the same way you used such things to determine the faces on Mt Rushmore would not be the result of blind, random chance.
Yes, I see how it does but Intuition is notoriously fallible.
But it's not intuition, veli. It'c logic, mathematical odds, and our previous scientific knowledge that shows such specified complexity does not arise on its own.
I also see how a designed world is more comforting, someone is driving the bus.
That is why I would guess we would probably invent a God even if there wasn't one. Combined with the fact not a big fan of an anthropomorphic diety, it just seems too comprehensible.
I would agree there are many invented gods, but that doesn't preclude there being one TRUE God, right? To say so would be just as foolish as saying since there are many wrong answers to a math equation, means there isn't a correct one. All we're doing is using science and logic to determine the specified complexity in life points to a designer, the same way the specified complexity in the faces on Mt Rushmore point to a designer and not blind, random chance.
But you said it was religious to celebrate a birthday of someone,didn't you?
Ummmmm, no...where did I say that? I celebrate my birthday and my family's birthdays but I don't consider myself or them to be GOD.
I'm simply asking out of all the wonderful scientists to choose from that have actually helped humanity, why choose to celebrate Darwin when so much of his theory has been shown to be wrong? Also, his myth basically claims you're no better than maggots or any other living organism, and without intrinsic value, etc so why would you want to celebrate such a thing? If darwin were right,it should be a time of mourning not celebration.
I guess I am weird but that whole accident thing makes me feel like I won the consciousness lottery. It makes it more valuable. As for purpose, I have enough chores to keep me busy for a lifetime.
It certainly makes it more difficult and dare I say, illogical and irrational to be an atheist.
Man needs bacteria to survive, they don't need us. They have us beat on seniority by about 3 billion years as well.
That's a FAITH-based statement, unless you were around to witness them coming into existence at that time.
It is possible we were designed just to transport bacteria from place to place.
As for celebrating, I prefer Pi (3/14) Day for obvious reasons. Make mine pumpkin.
Gee, it makes you wonder why anything allegedly evolved beyond bacteria, right?
Since it seems to have been violated at the quantum level,that would be a foolish challenge.
Really, it's been proven? Where?????
Except that is exactly what I am asking Behe to do, if the flagellum is designed, conduct an experiment to show it.
You obviously missed the point of my statement above. Let me try it this way: If I said unicorns exist,and you said they didn't, wouldn't it make more sense for me to provide the evidence for my position than to ask you to prove yours? Get the picture?
You see, you're asking Behe to prove something WON'T occur only to claim that not enough time was allowed for it to occur. Now, if you said that if a flagellum doesn't evolve within 2 years of the experiment, it would render molecule to man evolution falsified, I'm sure Behe et al would JUMP at the chance.
Darwinists are afraid to take Behe's challenge because they don't believe a flagellum will evolve. That should tell you something.
Just as evolution cannot not prove design false by showing things can evolve. Especially if one postulates an undetectable designer. It can only,assuming no divine shenanigans, prove the mechanisms exist.
DeleteI think you have one too many negatives in there. ;-)
Showing Newton theory is flawed does not prove Einstein's theory correct, he had to have positive evidence,the bending of light, to supersede Newton.
Once again, I think you're confusing I.D with Creation. I.D doesn't name the designer, they only claim that life shows signs of being intelligently designed. Now, for me, the designer is GOD, and yes He COULD cause bacteria to regrow their flagella, which is why I'm not the one saying the experiment would falsify creation - Behe et al are the ones saying it would falsify I.D as he knows it, and wouldn't that be a great victory for your side? To rub Behe's (arguably their most-hated opponent) nose in it? You would think they would have THOUSANDS of said experiments occurring to try to prove him wrong...yet apparently, they're afraid to take his challenge. That says it all.
You claim you are a better baseball hitter than me, you propose that I face a pitcher and see if how many hits I get, I get zero, you claim you proved you are a better hitter since I got no hits. Are you?
Again, you keep missing the point of why your analogy is false. See above regarding my unicorn analogy and you will see why it's basically easier to prove a positive than a negative. For example, Pasteur showed natural life does not come from non-living matter. Your side claims it does. Now, atheists simply can contend that he didn't give "life" enough time or the exact right conditions, etc. So shouldn't the onus be on them to prove life can come from non-living matter by simply creating it? BTW, the fact they can't, yet have been trying for YEARS, is even MORE evidence of intelligent design. ;-)
Because it is a bogus test,which even if the flagellum appeared does not eliminate design. It also assumes evolution needs a flagellum, and must create one in its absence. The flagellum is not the target of evolution. How long were bacteria around until the first appearance of a flagellum?
it's not bogus, because even if the flagellum doesn't evolve, darwinists can just play their "unfalsifiable card" and claim not enough time was allowed. But if a flagellum DID evolve, they would then shove it in Behe's face...yet they're afraid to take his challenge. I rest my case.
One last example,flip it around, evolutionists says the flagellum evolved, Behe says it must be designed, evolutionist says knock out the flagellum and see if the designer creates a new one, no flagellum occurs in five years. Does it disprove evolution or design?
Behe says the flagellum must have been designed for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that it's irreducibly complex, meaning it could not come about by the slow gradual means darwin's myth predicts. Now, that's even MORE reason for darwinists to take his challenge. Show that even the parts for it are coming into existence slowly and without genetic manipulation (I.D by them). What are they waiting for? they should be rushing to conduct this experiment! The fact they aren't, well.....
National Valium
DeleteBehe says the flagellum must have been designed for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that it's irreducibly complex, meaning it could not come about by the slow gradual means darwin's myth predicts.
Sorry but evolutionary processes have been empirically demonstrated to produce irreducible complexity. There are multiple ways it can be done in fact by such things as scaffolding, by changing functions over time, and by having redundant parts.
Evolution Of 'Irreducible Complexity' Explained
What are they waiting for? they should be rushing to conduct this experiment!
Because it's a disingenuous and frankly idiotic PR stunt by Behe, not a real challenge.
It would be like claiming the lottery was rigged, and demanding we set up an experiment to randomly produce the identical winning numbers again for the last 10 drawings.
Now why do you keep evading the question of why the Designer needed dozens of different types and variations of flagella and dozens of different types and variations of eyes?
nv,
ReplyDeleteNo, that's not what I said. I said technically, the elements alone COULD have created the faces on Mt Rushmore, but logic and common sense would prevail and tell us they DIDN'T.
I am saying I don't think they could. Erosion alone creating the exact copy of Mt Rushmore is impossible but it isn't a matter of chance,it is the physical limitations of erosion.
Secondly, why would it be impossible for erosion to occur at the right places to carve out the faces? Because they show specified complexity, right?
No,because erosion is not a coin flip with each configuration equally probable. Physics,chemistry and geology dictate what is possible. For instance erosion would have to overcome gravity to carve parts of the faces
As for complexity the Grand Canyon is far more complex than Mt Rushmore.
Why don't you use that same logic to deduce it would be impossible for blind, random chance to create life?
Here is the logic
1 Dogs are animals which can't fly
2 Birds are animals
3 Birds can't fly either.
nv,
DeleteThat's my point: Specified complexity proves the odds are too great against the elements alone carving those faces.
No one said the mechanisms of the ToE could carve anything.Unless you can show erosion uses the same mechanisms as " evolution ", on the same medium.
So once again, why do you reject that logic when it comes to blind random chance (elements) creating life which is much more specifically complex
Apples and oranges, define "specifically" please.
nv,
ReplyDeleteReally? What makes the grand canyon 'specifically complex'?
It has an specific shape, just like the the faces on Mt Rushmore. And that shape is highly complex. But unlike MtRushmore it was not created which that specific shape as a goal. Which is why demanding evolution to evolve a flagellum is wrong headed. The flagellum is the Grand Canyon not Mt Rushmore per the ToE.
The odds are great considering that it's just a big hole. Where's the specified complexity?
It is specific, not specified, unless you wished to make an exact copy. In which case it is specified complexity. That is what you are doing with Mt Rushmore, a prespecified target.
If the faces on Mt Rushmore were carved in the grand canyon walls, would you then believe random chance created them? See the difference?
That is because the mechanism of erosion is incapable of certain pre specified goals, if your goal had been the exact copy of the Grand Canyon it would be able to produce that. And that would have been so unlikely as to be considered impossible and yet there it is.
It is not the complexity, everything is complex at some level, it is the prespecification. The flagellum was not prespecified except by Behe in his experiment.
nv,
ReplyDeleteWhich is why specified complexity (in living organisms) is evidence AGAINST evolution, veli. Now you see where I.D uses science and logic to make that determination, the same way you used such things to determine the faces on Mt Rushmore would not be the result of blind, random chance.
How do you know it is prespecified? What science and logic do ID use? What is your evidence that the flagellum was a pre specified goal? Blueprints, a designer, how do you calculate the odds?
Just as evolution cannot not prove design false by showing things can evolve. Especially if one postulates an undetectable designer. It can only,assuming no divine shenanigans, prove the mechanisms exist.
I think you have one too many negatives in there. ;-)
It is awkward no doubt, "evolution cannot disprove design" is a bit less convoluted. I could use a good editor.
veli sid:
ReplyDeleteI am saying I don't think they could. Erosion alone creating the exact copy of Mt Rushmore is impossible but it isn't a matter of chance,it is the physical limitations of erosion.
THAT'S the point you keep missing. Technically, the elements could have cause those faces to be carved, but the odds of that happening are slim to none...yet you believe the elements created life, which is MUCH more intricate and specifically complex.
The faces are too intricate and specifically complex to be the result of unguided processes. That same logic is what I.D proponents use to determine life has a designer.
No,because erosion is not a coin flip with each configuration equally probable. Physics,chemistry and geology dictate what is possible. For instance erosion would have to overcome gravity to carve parts of the faces
But you believe the elements alone created the person required to create a LESSER thing (the faces on Mt Rushmore) So why can't you see the illogicality in your argument?
As for complexity the Grand Canyon is far more complex than Mt Rushmore
complexity...not just complexity.
No one said the mechanisms of the ToE could carve anything.Unless you can show erosion uses the same mechanisms as " evolution ", on the same medium.
But you believe blind nature created the mind, not to mention all the other specifically complex processes involved in life, correct? So why do you apply different logic when it comes to blind nature creating the faces on Mt Rushmore? All I'm asking you to do is use the same scientific knowledge, common sense and logic you use to determine the faces had a designer, to deduce natural life had a designer.
Apples and oranges, define "specifically" please.
ReplyDelete"specific" - having a special application, bearing, or reference; specifying, explicit, or definite: to state one's specific purpose.
dictionary.com
UNcommon Desecnt defines it as:
CSI: complex, specified information - Life shows evidence of complex, aperiodic, and specified information in its key functional macromolecules, and the only other example we know of such function-specifying complex information are artifacts designed by intelligent agents.
Here is the logic
1 Dogs are animals which can't fly
2 Birds are animals
3 Birds can't fly either.
That's a false and ridiculous analogy, veli. We're talking about things that show intricate, specified complexity and information. If you wouldn't believe the complex, specified information in a novel would be created by an explosion in a printing factory, why believe our biological complex, specified information could be created by accident?
It has an specific shape, just like the the faces on Mt Rushmore. And that shape is highly complex. But unlike MtRushmore it was not created which that specific shape as a goal. Which is why demanding evolution to evolve a flagellum is wrong headed. The flagellum is the Grand Canyon not Mt Rushmore per the ToE.
You're misunderstanding what is meant by specified complexity.
For example, if you walked into the forest and saw a hundred twigs laying on the ground, you might deduce the wind blew them down or they fell on their own over time from dryness or from animals resting on them, etc, However, if you walked in the forest and saw a hundred twigs spelling out a birthday greeting to someone, you would KNOW that someone (an intelligent agent) arranged the twigs in such a manner because they showed specified complexity.
It is specific, not specified, unless you wished to make an exact copy. In which case it is specified complexity. That is what you are doing with Mt Rushmore, a prespecified target.
No, specific and specified are basically the same word. Here's the second definition of "specific" from dictionary.com:
specified, precise, or particular: a specific sum of money.
That is because the mechanism of erosion is incapable of certain pre specified goals, if your goal had been the exact copy of the Grand Canyon it would be able to produce that. And that would have been so unlikely as to be considered impossible and yet there it is.
It is not the complexity, everything is complex at some level, it is the prespecification. The flagellum was not prespecified except by Behe in his experiment.
This is why there's a difference between something being complex and something being SPECIFICALLY complex. We don't call the Grand Canyon an example of specified complexity because its randomness is evident. The faces on Mt Rushmore show specified complexity, (noses, eyes, mouths, etc are all what we see on faces and the carvings on Mt Rushmore have them) so we know they had an intelligent creator.
How do you know it is prespecified? What science and logic do ID use? What is your evidence that the flagellum was a pre specified goal? Blueprints, a designer, how do you calculate the odds?
ReplyDeleteThe fact that it conveys specified information tells us that it was planned. Like I said, use the same logic and common sense you use to determine whether a book you're reading what intelligently designed, or an accident. The book is giving you information and you are receiving it. The book also has it's own information in terms of how the characters (letters, numbers, symbols, etc) are arranged on paper.
The specific information and complexity tell you that it came from an intelligent agent because blind, random chance does not produce such things. So use the same logic when it comes to the enormous amount of complex specified information in living organisms.
Just as evolution cannot not prove design false by showing things can evolve. Especially if one postulates an undetectable designer. It can only,assuming no divine shenanigans, prove the mechanisms exist.
It is awkward no doubt, "evolution cannot disprove design" is a bit less convoluted. I could use a good editor.
Behe said it could be falsified if darwinists could evolve a flagellum, but they're afraid to take his challenge.
As for evolution, how can it be falsified when anything that happens is attributed to it? How can it be falsified when evidence that is completely OPPOSITE of what evolutionists expected to find, is also considered evidence FOR it? UNfalsifiable.
National Velour
DeleteUNcommon Desecnt defines it as:
CSI: complex, specified information - Life shows evidence of complex, aperiodic, and specified information in its key functional macromolecules, and the only other example we know of such function-specifying complex information are artifacts designed by intelligent agents.
That's not a definition, it's just the repeated assertion that life contains the undefined term.
This is why there's a difference between something being complex and something being SPECIFICALLY complex. We don't call the Grand Canyon an example of specified complexity because its randomness is evident.
Why is its randomness evident? How do you know it doesn't contain some coded message you just haven't figured out yet? Maybe it's a likeness of the Great Leader on Planet Koosbane 12.
The faces on Mt Rushmore show specified complexity, (noses, eyes, mouths, etc are all what we see on faces and the carvings on Mt Rushmore have them) so we know they had an intelligent creator.
Only because you knew in advance what human faced looked like, so you just matched an existing before-the-fact "face' specification. What known, before-the-fact specification are you matching with DNA? All the IDiots are doing is writing down the after-the-fact description of DNA and claiming it's a specification.
Trying to pull a fast one like that might fool ignorant laymen such as yourself but it doesn't impress the scientific community.
nv,
DeleteTHAT'S the point you keep missing. Technically, the elements could have cause those faces to be carved,
Again I disagree, erosion is physically restrained from creating that complete structure, it is not because it would take too long. Nature cannot create a square circle not matter how long you wait.
.yet you believe the elements created life, which is MUCH more intricate and specifically complex.
I am agnostic on that matter, but we are talking about the ToE which is a completely different mechanism from whatever caused life to form since the ToE needs life as a medium to function.
But you believe the elements alone created the person required to create a LESSER thing (the faces on Mt Rushmore) So why can't you see the illogicality in your argument?
Sorry, you have yet to prove that which would cause the faces is that which caused the people. Only that both are natural. Again erosion can cause a much more specfic complexity than the Faces
But you believe blind nature created the mind, not to mention all the other specifically complex processes involved in life, correct? So why do you apply different logic when it comes to blind nature creating the faces on Mt Rushmore
Because the mechanisms nature uses are different, just as the mechanism used to create stars is not similar to erosion. You are saying if erosion can't create a star, fusion cannot either
.Nature is constrained by fundemental laws, you need to show a law that complexity of a certain kind violates that law, what exactly that law is and prove it first before you use it to prove your point. Mt Rushmore isn't it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThat's a false and ridiculous analogy, veli. We're talking about things that show intricate, specified complexity and information
DeleteThat CS is a certain quality I agree, so is the ability to fly. Both birds and dogs are animals, why can't they both fly? Because just because they are similar in one way doesn't mean they are similar in all ways. Just like erosion and the Toe, to prove your analogy you have to show that.
If you wouldn't believe the complex, specified information in a novel would be created by an explosion in a printing factory, why believe our biological complex, specified information could be created by accident?
What if the explosion was set by a human, could it create a novel? Again, the ToE doesn't require explosions, you need to show the specific mechanisms involved are incapable of creating the the quality, not the evaporative process.
Veli said:
ReplyDeleteAgain I disagree, erosion is physically restrained from creating that complete structure, it is not because it would take too long. Nature cannot create a square circle not matter how long you wait.
So you're saying you accept entropy? Once again, why don't you apply the same logic to living things?
I am agnostic on that matter, but we are talking about the ToE which is a completely different mechanism from whatever caused life to form since the ToE needs life as a medium to function.
So, you're not ruling out that an intelligent designer started life? Cool.
Sorry, you have yet to prove that which would cause the faces is that which caused the people. Only that both are natural. Again erosion can cause a much more specfic complexity than the Faces
I'm using logical deduction and scientific knowledge to show that specified complexity = intelligent design. You're ignoring those things in favour of faith in 'blind, random chance' being able to create things MUCH more specifically complex than the faces on Mt Rushmore.
Because the mechanisms nature uses are different, just as the mechanism used to create stars is not similar to erosion. You are saying if erosion can't create a star, fusion cannot either
.Nature is constrained by fundemental laws, you need to show a law that complexity of a certain kind violates that law, what exactly that law is and prove it first before you use it to prove your point. Mt Rushmore isn't it.
veli, this is why your argument does not hold water. You believe blind random chance created the mountains, therefore the elements can add and subtract (erosion) right? Yet the reason you reject the elements beings the cause of the faces on Mt Rushmore is because you KNOW specified complexity = intelligent design. You see, it's good that you realize the elements cannot do such things, I just want you to apply the same logic when it comes to their ability to create something even MORE specifically complex - life.
That CS is a certain quality I agree, so is the ability to fly. Both birds and dogs are animals, why can't they both fly? Because just because they are similar in one way doesn't mean they are similar in all ways. Just like erosion and the Toe, to prove your analogy you have to show that.
Again, it's an absurd and ridiculous analogy. I could say to you that the same elements you believe created oceans created the deserts, so why aren't the deserts wet? It's ridiculous.
Specified complexity = intelligent design. This is why you wouldn't believe a novel for sale in stores is the result of blind, random chance, but ink splattered paper strewn all over the floor could be. One shows CSI , the other doesn't. Just use the same logic when looking at biological systems.
What if the explosion was set by a human, could it create a novel?
Not unless the 'explosion' was designed/intended to create order and a specified finished product.
Again, the ToE doesn't require explosions, you need to show the specific mechanisms involved are incapable of creating the the quality, not the evaporative process.
No my friend, YOU need to show that despite all the evidence to the contrary, blind random chance not only could create something so specifically complex as life, but DID. Unless you can do that, your faith in darwin's myth is foolish and anti-scientific.