info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Cell and body shape, and organism development does NOT depend exclusively on genetic information.
149 views
Skip to first unread message
Otangelo Grasso
Mar 21, 2017, 8:34:56 AM3/21/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Cell and body shape, and organism development does NOT depend exclusively on genetic information.
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2316-where-do-complex-organisms-come-from
Kudo's to Stephen C. Meyer's book Darwin's doubt, which provides in my view probably the biggest blow and clearest evidence against Darwins Theory of evolution, after Behe's Darwin's black box. Two books, which i highly recommend to anyone interested in ID theory, and origins of biodiversity.
NEO-DARWINISM AND THE CHALLENGE OF EPIGENETIC INFORMATION
These different sources of epigenetic information in embryonic cells pose an enormous challenge to the sufficiency of the neo-Darwinian mechanism. According to neo-Darwinism, new information, form, and structure arise from natural selection acting on random mutations arising at a very low level within the biological hierarchy—within the genetic text. Yet both body-plan formation during embryological development and major morphological innovation during the history of life depend upon a specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational hierarchy, a level that DNA alone does not determine. If DNA isn’t wholly responsible for the way an embryo develops— for body-plan morphogenesis—then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely and still not produce a new body plan, regardless of the amount of time and the number of mutational trials available to the evolutionary process. Genetic mutations are simply the wrong tool for the job at hand. Even in a best-case scenario—one that ignores the immense improbability of generating new genes by mutation and selection—mutations in DNA sequence would merely produce new genetic information. But building a new body plan requires more than just genetic information. It requires both genetic and epigenetic information—information by definition that is not stored in DNA and thus cannot be generated by mutations to the DNA. It follows that the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot by itself generate novel body plans, such as those that first arose in the Cambrian explosion.
Centrosomes:
Centrosomes play a central role in development: a frog egg can be induced to develop into a frog merely by injecting a sperm centrosome—no sperm DNA is needed. Another non-genetic factor involved in development is the membrane pattern of the egg cell.
FORM AND INFORMATION
Organismal form and function depend upon the precise arrangement of various constituents as they arise during, or contribute to, embryological development. Thus, the specific arrangement of the other building blocks of biological form—cells, clusters of similar cell types, dGRNs, tissues, and organs—also represent a kind of specified or functional information.
ABOVE AND BEYOND: EPIGENETIC INFORMATION
genes alone do not determine the three-dimensional form and structure of an animal. Developmental biologists, in particular, are now discovering more and more ways that crucial information for building body plans is imparted by the form and structure of embryonic cells, including information from both the unfertilized and fertilized egg. DNA helps direct protein synthesis. Parts of the DNA molecule also help to regulate the timing and expression of genetic information and the synthesis of various proteins within cells. Yet once proteins are synthesized, they must be arranged into higher-level systems of proteins and structures.
The three-dimensional structure or spatial architecture of embryonic cells plays important roles in determining body-plan formation during embryogenesis. Developmental biologists have identified several sources of epigenetic information in these cells.
CYTOSKELETAL ARRAYS
The precise arrangement of microtubules in the cytoskeleton constitutes a form of critical structural information. neither the tubulin subunits, nor the genes that produce them, account for the differences in the shape of the microtubule arrays that distinguish different kinds of embryos and developmental pathways. Instead, the structure of the microtubule array itself is, once again, determined by the location and arrangement of its subunits, not the properties of the subunits themselves. Jonathan Wells explains it this way: “What matters in [embryological] development is the shape and location of microtubule arrays, and the shape and location of a microtubule array is not determined by its units.” Directed transport involves the cytoskeleton, but it also depends on spatially localized targets in the membrane that are in place before transport occurs. Developmental biologists have shown that these membrane patterns play a crucial role in the embryological development of fruit flies.
Membrane Targets
Preexisting membrane targets, already positioned on the inside surface of the egg cell, determine where these molecules will attach and how they will function. These membrane targets provide crucial information—spatial coordinates—for embryological development.
Ion Channels and Electromagnetic Fields
Experiments have shown that electromagnetic fields have “morphogenetic” effects—in other words, effects that influence the form of a developing organism. In particular, some experiments have shown that the targeted disturbance of these electric fields disrupts normal development in ways that suggest the fields are controlling morphogenesis.2 Artificially applied electric fields can induce and guide cell migration. There is also evidence that direct current can affect gene expression, meaning internally generated electric fields can provide spatial coordinates that guide embryogenesis.3 Although the ion channels that generate the fields consist of proteins that may be encoded by DNA (just as microtubules consist of subunits encoded by DNA), their pattern in the membrane is not. Thus, in addition to the information in DNA that encodes morphogenetic proteins, the spatial arrangement and distribution of these ion channels influences the development of the animal.
The Sugar Code
These sequence-specific information-rich structures influence the arrangement of different cell types during embryological development. Thus, some cell biologists now refer to the arrangements of sugar molecules as the “sugar code” and compare these sequences to the digitally encoded information stored in DNA. As biochemist Hans-Joachim Gabius notes, sugars provide a system with “high-density coding” that is “essential to allow cells to communicate efficiently and swiftly through complex surface interactions.” According to Gabius, “These [sugar] molecules surpass amino acids and nucleotides by far in information-storing capacity.” So the precisely arranged sugar molecules on the surface of cells clearly represent another source of information independent of that stored in DNA base sequences. These cascades are, along with the cell event itself, associated with the “coding information” on a cell surface, or, using another terminology, are realized due to an instruction for the cell from the morphogenetic field of an organism. The concrete signal transduction pathways connecting the "coding information" on a cell surface and the expression of the given sets of genes need to be elucidated.
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2316-where-do-complex-organisms-come-from
Kudo's to Stephen C. Meyer's book Darwin's doubt, which provides in my view probably the biggest blow and clearest evidence against Darwins Theory of evolution, after Behe's Darwin's black box. Two books, which i highly recommend to anyone interested in ID theory, and origins of biodiversity.
NEO-DARWINISM AND THE CHALLENGE OF EPIGENETIC INFORMATION
These different sources of epigenetic information in embryonic cells pose an enormous challenge to the sufficiency of the neo-Darwinian mechanism. According to neo-Darwinism, new information, form, and structure arise from natural selection acting on random mutations arising at a very low level within the biological hierarchy—within the genetic text. Yet both body-plan formation during embryological development and major morphological innovation during the history of life depend upon a specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational hierarchy, a level that DNA alone does not determine. If DNA isn’t wholly responsible for the way an embryo develops— for body-plan morphogenesis—then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely and still not produce a new body plan, regardless of the amount of time and the number of mutational trials available to the evolutionary process. Genetic mutations are simply the wrong tool for the job at hand. Even in a best-case scenario—one that ignores the immense improbability of generating new genes by mutation and selection—mutations in DNA sequence would merely produce new genetic information. But building a new body plan requires more than just genetic information. It requires both genetic and epigenetic information—information by definition that is not stored in DNA and thus cannot be generated by mutations to the DNA. It follows that the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot by itself generate novel body plans, such as those that first arose in the Cambrian explosion.
Centrosomes:
Centrosomes play a central role in development: a frog egg can be induced to develop into a frog merely by injecting a sperm centrosome—no sperm DNA is needed. Another non-genetic factor involved in development is the membrane pattern of the egg cell.
FORM AND INFORMATION
Organismal form and function depend upon the precise arrangement of various constituents as they arise during, or contribute to, embryological development. Thus, the specific arrangement of the other building blocks of biological form—cells, clusters of similar cell types, dGRNs, tissues, and organs—also represent a kind of specified or functional information.
ABOVE AND BEYOND: EPIGENETIC INFORMATION
genes alone do not determine the three-dimensional form and structure of an animal. Developmental biologists, in particular, are now discovering more and more ways that crucial information for building body plans is imparted by the form and structure of embryonic cells, including information from both the unfertilized and fertilized egg. DNA helps direct protein synthesis. Parts of the DNA molecule also help to regulate the timing and expression of genetic information and the synthesis of various proteins within cells. Yet once proteins are synthesized, they must be arranged into higher-level systems of proteins and structures.
The three-dimensional structure or spatial architecture of embryonic cells plays important roles in determining body-plan formation during embryogenesis. Developmental biologists have identified several sources of epigenetic information in these cells.
CYTOSKELETAL ARRAYS
The precise arrangement of microtubules in the cytoskeleton constitutes a form of critical structural information. neither the tubulin subunits, nor the genes that produce them, account for the differences in the shape of the microtubule arrays that distinguish different kinds of embryos and developmental pathways. Instead, the structure of the microtubule array itself is, once again, determined by the location and arrangement of its subunits, not the properties of the subunits themselves. Jonathan Wells explains it this way: “What matters in [embryological] development is the shape and location of microtubule arrays, and the shape and location of a microtubule array is not determined by its units.” Directed transport involves the cytoskeleton, but it also depends on spatially localized targets in the membrane that are in place before transport occurs. Developmental biologists have shown that these membrane patterns play a crucial role in the embryological development of fruit flies.
Membrane Targets
Preexisting membrane targets, already positioned on the inside surface of the egg cell, determine where these molecules will attach and how they will function. These membrane targets provide crucial information—spatial coordinates—for embryological development.
Ion Channels and Electromagnetic Fields
Experiments have shown that electromagnetic fields have “morphogenetic” effects—in other words, effects that influence the form of a developing organism. In particular, some experiments have shown that the targeted disturbance of these electric fields disrupts normal development in ways that suggest the fields are controlling morphogenesis.2 Artificially applied electric fields can induce and guide cell migration. There is also evidence that direct current can affect gene expression, meaning internally generated electric fields can provide spatial coordinates that guide embryogenesis.3 Although the ion channels that generate the fields consist of proteins that may be encoded by DNA (just as microtubules consist of subunits encoded by DNA), their pattern in the membrane is not. Thus, in addition to the information in DNA that encodes morphogenetic proteins, the spatial arrangement and distribution of these ion channels influences the development of the animal.
The Sugar Code
These sequence-specific information-rich structures influence the arrangement of different cell types during embryological development. Thus, some cell biologists now refer to the arrangements of sugar molecules as the “sugar code” and compare these sequences to the digitally encoded information stored in DNA. As biochemist Hans-Joachim Gabius notes, sugars provide a system with “high-density coding” that is “essential to allow cells to communicate efficiently and swiftly through complex surface interactions.” According to Gabius, “These [sugar] molecules surpass amino acids and nucleotides by far in information-storing capacity.” So the precisely arranged sugar molecules on the surface of cells clearly represent another source of information independent of that stored in DNA base sequences. These cascades are, along with the cell event itself, associated with the “coding information” on a cell surface, or, using another terminology, are realized due to an instruction for the cell from the morphogenetic field of an organism. The concrete signal transduction pathways connecting the "coding information" on a cell surface and the expression of the given sets of genes need to be elucidated.
Bill Rogers
Mar 21, 2017, 9:24:57 AM3/21/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Sean Dillon
Mar 21, 2017, 12:24:55 PM3/21/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
In short, this does absolutely nothing to help the case for Intelligent Design, it merely adds another layer to what we previously knew about evolution.
Eric
Mar 21, 2017, 12:44:54 PM3/21/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Nearly all epigenetic factors are removed during gamete production, meaning that almost all epigenetic factors are not inherited. In the end, it is the DNA sequence of the genome that is responsible for specific epigenetic responses to environmental stimuli. It isn't as if just the right environmental stimulus can cause a chimp to give birth to a human. The phenotypic differences between humans and chimps is due to DNA sequence differences, not epigenetic differences.
jillery
Mar 21, 2017, 1:44:57 PM3/21/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
and awe approach, to bombard its readers with a collection of
exotic-sounding facts, to overwhelm their brains and push them into a
state of incredulity; "none of that could possibly have happened
without purposeful and guided intelligence".
As illustrated in other recent topics, the same thing is accomplished
by using numbers with lots of zeros before and/or after the decimal
point.
Thinking can be hard and time-consuming. It's so much easier and
faster to just assume some all-powerful but kindly deity takes care of
complicated thingies. As Tyson points out, even very intelligent
people fall into that trap:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guvspR4UQys>
Jump to around 20:50 to get to the point.
"Science is a philosophy of discovery. Intelligent Design is a
philosophy of ignorance."
--
This space is intentionally not blank.
Eric
Mar 21, 2017, 2:39:54 PM3/21/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 11:44:57 AM UTC-6, jillery wrote:
> Correct. My impression is the article Grasso cites is using a shock
> and awe approach, to bombard its readers with a collection of
> exotic-sounding facts, to overwhelm their brains and push them into a
> state of incredulity; "none of that could possibly have happened
> without purposeful and guided intelligence".
Unfortunately, this observation is true for many people who push the "magic" of epigenetics. The same can be said of the Extended Evolutionary Theory crowd as well. What they have is a lot of hyperbole, but not a lot of actual effect or mechanism. They have a sales pitch, but not a lot of actual science.
> Correct. My impression is the article Grasso cites is using a shock
> and awe approach, to bombard its readers with a collection of
> exotic-sounding facts, to overwhelm their brains and push them into a
> state of incredulity; "none of that could possibly have happened
> without purposeful and guided intelligence".
At the end of the day, the physical differences between species are still best explained by differences in DNA sequence. What minor effects epigenetics may have is completely swamped by the overall differences between species. On top of that, the changes that epigenetics does make is still dependent on DNA sequence. Epigenetics is a tempest in a teapot.
RSNorman
Mar 21, 2017, 3:24:57 PM3/21/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 13:41:23 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 09:23:42 -0700 (PDT), Sean Dillon
><seand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 7:34:56 AM UTC-5, Otangelo Grasso wrote:
>>> Cell and body shape, and organism development does NOT depend exclusively on genetic information.
>>>
>>> http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2316-where-do-complex-organisms-come-from
<snip the usual heavenforum stuff and get to the point>
>>In short, this does absolutely nothing to help the case for Intelligent Design, it merely adds another layer to what we previously knew about evolution.
>
>
>Correct. My impression is the article Grasso cites is using a shock
>and awe approach, to bombard its readers with a collection of
>exotic-sounding facts, to overwhelm their brains and push them into a
>state of incredulity; "none of that could possibly have happened
>without purposeful and guided intelligence".
>
Correct, correct, correct. Your impression is amply confirmed by the
dozens upon dozens of previous Grasso cut-paste jobs from heavenforum
all of which present generally quite accurate biological information
ending with incredulity that it could all happen through evolution.
As I have pointed out previously, the heavenforum site contains
literally hundreds of these things. Grasso is likely to eventually
get through every one. He has completely failed to respond to us
patiently trying to explain reality to him. Need we persist?
wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 09:23:42 -0700 (PDT), Sean Dillon
><seand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, March 21, 2017 at 7:34:56 AM UTC-5, Otangelo Grasso wrote:
>>> Cell and body shape, and organism development does NOT depend exclusively on genetic information.
>>>
>>> http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2316-where-do-complex-organisms-come-from
>>In short, this does absolutely nothing to help the case for Intelligent Design, it merely adds another layer to what we previously knew about evolution.
>
>
>Correct. My impression is the article Grasso cites is using a shock
>and awe approach, to bombard its readers with a collection of
>exotic-sounding facts, to overwhelm their brains and push them into a
>state of incredulity; "none of that could possibly have happened
>without purposeful and guided intelligence".
>
dozens upon dozens of previous Grasso cut-paste jobs from heavenforum
all of which present generally quite accurate biological information
ending with incredulity that it could all happen through evolution.
As I have pointed out previously, the heavenforum site contains
literally hundreds of these things. Grasso is likely to eventually
get through every one. He has completely failed to respond to us
patiently trying to explain reality to him. Need we persist?
RonO
Mar 21, 2017, 7:24:54 PM3/21/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 3/21/2017 7:30 AM, Otangelo Grasso wrote:
SNIP all the bogus bull pucky.
What have you ever gotten from Meyers that was ever worth jack? Have
you been able to confirm that any of it is worth anything. Meyers is
the ID perp scam artist that sold creationist rubes such as yourself the
teach ID scam when scientific creationist bit the dust. He figured out
fairly quickly that the ID scam was worse off than scientific
creationism and started running the bait and switch scam on rubes like
you. No one ever gets the wonderful ID science that is supposed to exist.
What planet do you live on? What ID science would you get from Meyer if
you got your local school board to teach the bogus junk? The switch
scam Meyer gives you instead doesn't even mention that ID ever existed.
What is your explanation for that happening for over a decade and a half
now?
Meyer running the teach ID scam when the ID scam was starting off:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010414020851/http://law.gonzaga.edu/people/dewolf/fte2.htm
QUOTE:
9. Conclusion
Local school boards and state education officials are frequently
pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding biological
origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National Academy of Sciences,
go so far as to deny the existence of any genuine scientific controversy
about the issue.(162) Nevertheless, teachers should be reassured that
they have the right to expose their students to the problems as well as
the appeal of Darwinian theory. Moreover, as the previous discussion
demonstrates, school boards have the authority to permit, and even
encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian
evolution--and this includes the use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and
People that present evidence for the theory of intelligent design.
The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision in
Edwards v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of alternatives
to Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are based on
scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly religious concerns.
Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than
religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including discussions
of design in the science curriculum thus serves an important goal of
making education inclusive, rather than exclusionary. In addition, it
provides students with an important demonstration of the best way for
them as future scientists and citizens to resolve scientific
controversies--by a careful and fair-minded examination of the evidence.
END QUOTE:
This was how Meyer was selling the ID scam back in 1999.
Wells' report on the first bait and switch where he admits that the ID
perps got together before going to Ohio in March 2002 and decided to run
the bait and switch on the Ohio rubes instead of give them the wonderful
ID science that they had told them they could teach in their public schools.
The link to the report is now broken, but I saved a copy.
QUOTE:
Steve Meyer and I (in consultation with others) had decided ahead of
time that we would not push for including intelligent design (ID) in the
state science standards, but would propose instead that the standards
include language protecting teachers who choose to teach the controversy.
END QUOTE:
The bait and switch scam has been run on every single IDiot creationist
rube that has been stupid enough to claim that they had the ID science
to teach, and Meyer runs the ID scam outfit that runs the bait and
switch on IDiots like you.
This has been your reality for so long that you have to be pretty lame
to not understand what is going on. Just as Bill if he will bother to
clue you in and tell you why he is no longer an IDiot and likely knows
not to trust Meyer any further than he can throw his computer while is
still plugged in.
Ron Okimoto
SNIP all the bogus bull pucky.
What have you ever gotten from Meyers that was ever worth jack? Have
you been able to confirm that any of it is worth anything. Meyers is
the ID perp scam artist that sold creationist rubes such as yourself the
teach ID scam when scientific creationist bit the dust. He figured out
fairly quickly that the ID scam was worse off than scientific
creationism and started running the bait and switch scam on rubes like
you. No one ever gets the wonderful ID science that is supposed to exist.
What planet do you live on? What ID science would you get from Meyer if
you got your local school board to teach the bogus junk? The switch
scam Meyer gives you instead doesn't even mention that ID ever existed.
What is your explanation for that happening for over a decade and a half
now?
Meyer running the teach ID scam when the ID scam was starting off:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010414020851/http://law.gonzaga.edu/people/dewolf/fte2.htm
QUOTE:
9. Conclusion
Local school boards and state education officials are frequently
pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding biological
origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National Academy of Sciences,
go so far as to deny the existence of any genuine scientific controversy
about the issue.(162) Nevertheless, teachers should be reassured that
they have the right to expose their students to the problems as well as
the appeal of Darwinian theory. Moreover, as the previous discussion
demonstrates, school boards have the authority to permit, and even
encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian
evolution--and this includes the use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and
People that present evidence for the theory of intelligent design.
The controlling legal authority, the Supreme Court's decision in
Edwards v. Aguillard, explicitly permits the inclusion of alternatives
to Darwinian evolution so long as those alternatives are based on
scientific evidence and not motivated by strictly religious concerns.
Since design theory is based on scientific evidence rather than
religious assumptions, it clearly meets this test. Including discussions
of design in the science curriculum thus serves an important goal of
making education inclusive, rather than exclusionary. In addition, it
provides students with an important demonstration of the best way for
them as future scientists and citizens to resolve scientific
controversies--by a careful and fair-minded examination of the evidence.
END QUOTE:
This was how Meyer was selling the ID scam back in 1999.
Wells' report on the first bait and switch where he admits that the ID
perps got together before going to Ohio in March 2002 and decided to run
the bait and switch on the Ohio rubes instead of give them the wonderful
ID science that they had told them they could teach in their public schools.
The link to the report is now broken, but I saved a copy.
QUOTE:
Steve Meyer and I (in consultation with others) had decided ahead of
time that we would not push for including intelligent design (ID) in the
state science standards, but would propose instead that the standards
include language protecting teachers who choose to teach the controversy.
END QUOTE:
The bait and switch scam has been run on every single IDiot creationist
rube that has been stupid enough to claim that they had the ID science
to teach, and Meyer runs the ID scam outfit that runs the bait and
switch on IDiots like you.
This has been your reality for so long that you have to be pretty lame
to not understand what is going on. Just as Bill if he will bother to
clue you in and tell you why he is no longer an IDiot and likely knows
not to trust Meyer any further than he can throw his computer while is
still plugged in.
Ron Okimoto
Otangelo Grasso
Mar 21, 2017, 8:24:54 PM3/21/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Meyers is
> the ID perp scam artist
i am convinced now. From now on, you will listen and adopt your views based on your amazing knowledge and authority in scientific matters. Congrats....zzz...
> the ID perp scam artist
RonO
Mar 21, 2017, 8:59:55 PM3/21/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
live in.
Why not face reality and determine for yourself what Meyer and the
others like him actually think of rubes like yourself. These are the
guys that are running the bait and switch. You are only among the
creationist rubes that has the bait and switch run on them. The ID
perps are not running the bait and switch on the science side, but on
their own creationist support base. You will never see the ID science
because it never existed. I hope you did not buy the book because Meyer
is likely laughing all the way to the bank at this time. What did Meyer
sell you, and what do you actually get from the guy?
What have you ever gotten from the Discovery Institute that ever
amounted to anything? Why do you keep going back to get lied to over
and over?
Why did the ISCID fold up shop and quit? They were supposed to be an
international organization of IDiots with all the ID perps as members,
and what happened to the ID science? Why keep putting up the junk you
get from Meyer when it failed to convince the other IDiot scientists?
Ron Okimoto
R. Dean
Mar 26, 2017, 8:04:55 PM3/26/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
who claim that evolution is a scam. You and the Iders can point to
scientist who are in agreement. So, perhaps it's just as well to
refrain from using such "inflaming" words. They are not conducive
to intelligent discussion and serves positively no purpose other
than self-sanctification (mental masturbation).
[snip]
jillery
Mar 26, 2017, 10:44:54 PM3/26/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 20:08:22 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:
Your inflaming words disqualify you from complaining about other
people's alleged inflaming words.
And if you claim you don't know what inflaming words of yours I could
possibly be talking about, and as much as I would rather not go
through that effort, I will cite and quote them.
More to the point, you assert a false equivalence. Yes, there are
people who claim academic credentials and personally support ID. But
to the best of my knowledge, whatever those ID scientists have done,
they have not documented any evidence in support of ID. Instead, all
ID scientists I know of who have even attempted to deal with material
evidence, have focused on claims critical of unguided biological
evolution, which is not the same kind of evidence at all.
OTOH there is an abundant and ever-growing body of work which
materially and explicitly supports unguided biological evolution.
Since you seem to doubt the veracity of that statement, you can start
with the talk.origins archives:
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>
Of course, that's been pointed out to you before. And lots of posters
to T.O. have provided lots of cites to scientific articles and books
which document evidence for unguided biological evolution. All of
which you apparently just handwave away, a characteristic behavior
among ID supporters, like Michael Behe did during the Dover trial.
If you're really interested, here's an "Unannotated Bibliography on
the Evolutionary Origin of the Immune System", which includes the
articles and books which virtually buried Behe on the witness stand:
<https://ncse.com/creationism/legal/unannotated-bibliography-evolutionary-origin-immune-system>
So instead of just posting your red herrings above, IMO it would have
been more productive if you had at least tried to answer Ron O's
challenges about Meyer. Of course, evading questions is another
characteristic behavior of ID supporters.
wrote:
people's alleged inflaming words.
And if you claim you don't know what inflaming words of yours I could
possibly be talking about, and as much as I would rather not go
through that effort, I will cite and quote them.
More to the point, you assert a false equivalence. Yes, there are
people who claim academic credentials and personally support ID. But
to the best of my knowledge, whatever those ID scientists have done,
they have not documented any evidence in support of ID. Instead, all
ID scientists I know of who have even attempted to deal with material
evidence, have focused on claims critical of unguided biological
evolution, which is not the same kind of evidence at all.
OTOH there is an abundant and ever-growing body of work which
materially and explicitly supports unguided biological evolution.
Since you seem to doubt the veracity of that statement, you can start
with the talk.origins archives:
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>
Of course, that's been pointed out to you before. And lots of posters
to T.O. have provided lots of cites to scientific articles and books
which document evidence for unguided biological evolution. All of
which you apparently just handwave away, a characteristic behavior
among ID supporters, like Michael Behe did during the Dover trial.
If you're really interested, here's an "Unannotated Bibliography on
the Evolutionary Origin of the Immune System", which includes the
articles and books which virtually buried Behe on the witness stand:
<https://ncse.com/creationism/legal/unannotated-bibliography-evolutionary-origin-immune-system>
So instead of just posting your red herrings above, IMO it would have
been more productive if you had at least tried to answer Ron O's
challenges about Meyer. Of course, evading questions is another
characteristic behavior of ID supporters.
R. Dean
Mar 27, 2017, 12:44:55 AM3/27/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
I turn them around.
>
> And if you claim you don't know what inflaming words of yours I could
> possibly be talking about, and as much as I would rather not go
> through that effort, I will cite and quote them.
>
> More to the point, you assert a false equivalence.
>
Really? How can you prove it's a false equivalency without resorting to
> And if you claim you don't know what inflaming words of yours I could
> possibly be talking about, and as much as I would rather not go
> through that effort, I will cite and quote them.
>
> More to the point, you assert a false equivalence.
>
sophistry.
The point is those who hold a different view have the same assured
conviction as you of their rightness. But in your self-appointed
superiority you can judge them.
>
Yes, there are
> people who claim academic credentials and personally support ID. But
> to the best of my knowledge, whatever those ID scientists have done,
> they have not documented any evidence in support of ID. Instead, all
> ID scientists I know of who have even attempted to deal with material
> evidence, have focused on claims critical of unguided biological
> evolution, which is not the same kind of evidence at all.
>
The biological evidence, is only one aspect of the whole. To be sure
Yes, there are
> people who claim academic credentials and personally support ID. But
> to the best of my knowledge, whatever those ID scientists have done,
> they have not documented any evidence in support of ID. Instead, all
> ID scientists I know of who have even attempted to deal with material
> evidence, have focused on claims critical of unguided biological
> evolution, which is not the same kind of evidence at all.
>
Jill, when the major critics of ID, are _not_ open to interpretation
of the evidence, that does not align with their own. There are many
facts that are presented as evidence of evolution, but could also be
seen as evidence of design.
>
> OTOH there is an abundant and ever-growing body of work which
> materially and explicitly supports unguided biological evolution.
> Since you seem to doubt the veracity of that statement, you can start
> with the talk.origins archives:
>
> <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>
>
> Of course, that's been pointed out to you before. And lots of posters
> to T.O. have provided lots of cites to scientific articles and books
> which document evidence for unguided biological evolution. All of
> which you apparently just handwave away, a characteristic behavior
> among ID supporters, like Michael Behe did during the Dover trial.
>
In going to the Talk Origins FAC, I noted that for references the
> OTOH there is an abundant and ever-growing body of work which
> materially and explicitly supports unguided biological evolution.
> Since you seem to doubt the veracity of that statement, you can start
> with the talk.origins archives:
>
> <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>
>
> Of course, that's been pointed out to you before. And lots of posters
> to T.O. have provided lots of cites to scientific articles and books
> which document evidence for unguided biological evolution. All of
> which you apparently just handwave away, a characteristic behavior
> among ID supporters, like Michael Behe did during the Dover trial.
>
used Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynment, Futuyma, Stephen Gould
Earnst Mayr etc. One can be certain of that this is not a balanced
and fair both sides approach.
>
> If you're really interested, here's an "Unannotated Bibliography on
> the Evolutionary Origin of the Immune System", which includes the
> articles and books which virtually buried Behe on the witness stand:
>
> <https://ncse.com/creationism/legal/unannotated-bibliography-evolutionary-origin-immune-system>
>
> So instead of just posting your red herrings above, IMO it would have
> been more productive if you had at least tried to answer Ron O's
> challenges about Meyer. Of course, evading questions is another
> characteristic behavior of ID supporters.
>
It isn't evading questions when you don't have _all_ the answers.
> If you're really interested, here's an "Unannotated Bibliography on
> the Evolutionary Origin of the Immune System", which includes the
> articles and books which virtually buried Behe on the witness stand:
>
> <https://ncse.com/creationism/legal/unannotated-bibliography-evolutionary-origin-immune-system>
>
> So instead of just posting your red herrings above, IMO it would have
> been more productive if you had at least tried to answer Ron O's
> challenges about Meyer. Of course, evading questions is another
> characteristic behavior of ID supporters.
>
Bill Rogers
Mar 27, 2017, 6:49:54 AM3/27/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 12:44:55 AM UTC-4, R. Dean wrote:
> In going to the Talk Origins FAC, I noted that for references the
> used Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynment, Futuyma, Stephen Gould
> Earnst Mayr etc. One can be certain of that this is not a balanced
> and fair both sides approach.
Of course it's not a balanced approach. As openly stated on the website, the TalkOrigins FAQ outlines the mainstream scientific view of evolution, the view held by the vast majority of biological scientists. When there is a strong consensus on a scientific issue it is not "fair and balanced" to give equal weight and coverage to both sides. Saying "Some people say evolution happened, some people say no" is no more fair and balanced than saying "some people say the Apollo moon landings happened, some people say they were faked."
> In going to the Talk Origins FAC, I noted that for references the
> used Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynment, Futuyma, Stephen Gould
> Earnst Mayr etc. One can be certain of that this is not a balanced
> and fair both sides approach.
It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of biological scientists accept the theory of evolution. You can say they are wrong. You can try to infer nefarious motives on their part. You can claim they are victims of groupthink. You can claim that the tiny fraction of dissenters are really on to something. But you can't pretend that there is not a massive scientific consensus on the issue.
Rolf
Mar 27, 2017, 7:09:54 AM3/27/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:v2vgdc5uffs79piq6...@4ax.com...
climbing a tree.
Retort to remark about no trees out at sea: 'wasn't anything else I could
do'
jillery
Mar 27, 2017, 9:04:55 AM3/27/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 00:46:26 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
Your posts to this thread put the lie to your claim immediately above.
If you're really going to stick with that infantile defense, at least
try to make sure it's actually true.
>> And if you claim you don't know what inflaming words of yours I could
>> possibly be talking about, and as much as I would rather not go
>> through that effort, I will cite and quote them.
>>
>> More to the point, you assert a false equivalence.
> >
>Really? How can you prove it's a false equivalency without resorting to
>sophistry.
Ignoring your pointless demand for "proof", right here would have been
a good place for you to have identified what parts of my post are
"sophistry". That you didn't suggests you know your comment is just
more of your rock throwing.
>The point is those who hold a different view have the same assured
>conviction as you of their rightness.
Nope, that's not the point. The point is the convictions of
supporters of unguided evolution are based on hard work, solid
evidence, and reasoned argument. While the convictions of the other
side, your side, are based on strawmen and willful ignorance. Your
posts are good examples of that.
>But in your self-appointed superiority you can judge them.
Nope, that's not it either. I "judge" their *conclusions* based on
the vacuity of their arguments. My alleged superiority, which I
neither claimed nor implied, has nothing to do with it. Your ad
hominems are more of your rock throwing.
> Yes, there are
>> people who claim academic credentials and personally support ID. But
>> to the best of my knowledge, whatever those ID scientists have done,
>> they have not documented any evidence in support of ID. Instead, all
>> ID scientists I know of who have even attempted to deal with material
>> evidence, have focused on claims critical of unguided biological
>> evolution, which is not the same kind of evidence at all.
> >
>The biological evidence, is only one aspect of the whole. To be sure
>Jill, when the major critics of ID, are _not_ open to interpretation
>of the evidence, that does not align with their own. There are many
>facts that are presented as evidence of evolution, but could also be
>seen as evidence of design.
Just about anything could be seen as evidence of ID, which is the
problem. There is nothing that an unknown, unseen, undefined,
supernatural Designer couldn't do. Such an inference isn't
falsifiable, and so is scientifically useless.
>> OTOH there is an abundant and ever-growing body of work which
>> materially and explicitly supports unguided biological evolution.
>> Since you seem to doubt the veracity of that statement, you can start
>> with the talk.origins archives:
>>
>> <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>
>>
>> Of course, that's been pointed out to you before. And lots of posters
>> to T.O. have provided lots of cites to scientific articles and books
>> which document evidence for unguided biological evolution. All of
>> which you apparently just handwave away, a characteristic behavior
>> among ID supporters, like Michael Behe did during the Dover trial.
> >
>In going to the Talk Origins FAC, I noted that for references the
>used Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynment, Futuyma, Stephen Gould
>Earnst Mayr etc. One can be certain of that this is not a balanced
>and fair both sides approach.
You want fair and balanced? Here's how to get it: back up your
claims. Don't expect others to do it for you.
>> If you're really interested, here's an "Unannotated Bibliography on
>> the Evolutionary Origin of the Immune System", which includes the
>> articles and books which virtually buried Behe on the witness stand:
>>
>> <https://ncse.com/creationism/legal/unannotated-bibliography-evolutionary-origin-immune-system>
>>
>> So instead of just posting your red herrings above, IMO it would have
>> been more productive if you had at least tried to answer Ron O's
>> challenges about Meyer. Of course, evading questions is another
>> characteristic behavior of ID supporters.
> >
>It isn't evading questions when you don't have _all_ the answers.
It *is* evading questions when you don't even acknowledge them, and
instead accuse others of what you do yourself.
If you're really going to stick with that infantile defense, at least
try to make sure it's actually true.
>> And if you claim you don't know what inflaming words of yours I could
>> possibly be talking about, and as much as I would rather not go
>> through that effort, I will cite and quote them.
>>
>> More to the point, you assert a false equivalence.
> >
>Really? How can you prove it's a false equivalency without resorting to
>sophistry.
a good place for you to have identified what parts of my post are
"sophistry". That you didn't suggests you know your comment is just
more of your rock throwing.
>The point is those who hold a different view have the same assured
>conviction as you of their rightness.
supporters of unguided evolution are based on hard work, solid
evidence, and reasoned argument. While the convictions of the other
side, your side, are based on strawmen and willful ignorance. Your
posts are good examples of that.
>But in your self-appointed superiority you can judge them.
the vacuity of their arguments. My alleged superiority, which I
neither claimed nor implied, has nothing to do with it. Your ad
hominems are more of your rock throwing.
> Yes, there are
>> people who claim academic credentials and personally support ID. But
>> to the best of my knowledge, whatever those ID scientists have done,
>> they have not documented any evidence in support of ID. Instead, all
>> ID scientists I know of who have even attempted to deal with material
>> evidence, have focused on claims critical of unguided biological
>> evolution, which is not the same kind of evidence at all.
> >
>The biological evidence, is only one aspect of the whole. To be sure
>Jill, when the major critics of ID, are _not_ open to interpretation
>of the evidence, that does not align with their own. There are many
>facts that are presented as evidence of evolution, but could also be
>seen as evidence of design.
problem. There is nothing that an unknown, unseen, undefined,
supernatural Designer couldn't do. Such an inference isn't
falsifiable, and so is scientifically useless.
>> OTOH there is an abundant and ever-growing body of work which
>> materially and explicitly supports unguided biological evolution.
>> Since you seem to doubt the veracity of that statement, you can start
>> with the talk.origins archives:
>>
>> <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>
>>
>> Of course, that's been pointed out to you before. And lots of posters
>> to T.O. have provided lots of cites to scientific articles and books
>> which document evidence for unguided biological evolution. All of
>> which you apparently just handwave away, a characteristic behavior
>> among ID supporters, like Michael Behe did during the Dover trial.
> >
>In going to the Talk Origins FAC, I noted that for references the
>used Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynment, Futuyma, Stephen Gould
>Earnst Mayr etc. One can be certain of that this is not a balanced
>and fair both sides approach.
claims. Don't expect others to do it for you.
>> If you're really interested, here's an "Unannotated Bibliography on
>> the Evolutionary Origin of the Immune System", which includes the
>> articles and books which virtually buried Behe on the witness stand:
>>
>> <https://ncse.com/creationism/legal/unannotated-bibliography-evolutionary-origin-immune-system>
>>
>> So instead of just posting your red herrings above, IMO it would have
>> been more productive if you had at least tried to answer Ron O's
>> challenges about Meyer. Of course, evading questions is another
>> characteristic behavior of ID supporters.
> >
>It isn't evading questions when you don't have _all_ the answers.
instead accuse others of what you do yourself.
jillery
Mar 27, 2017, 9:04:56 AM3/27/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 13:06:21 +0200, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Well, you know what they say about chiffhangers...
wrote:
R. Dean
Mar 27, 2017, 11:14:55 AM3/27/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 3/27/2017 6:46 AM, Bill Rogers wrote:
> On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 12:44:55 AM UTC-4, R. Dean wrote:
>
>> In going to the Talk Origins FAC, I noted that for references the
>> used Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynment, Futuyma, Stephen Gould
>> Earnst Mayr etc. One can be certain of that this is not a balanced
>> and fair both sides approach.
>
> Of course it's not a balanced approach. As openly stated on the website, the TalkOrigins FAQ outlines the mainstream scientific view of evolution, the view held by the vast majority of biological scientists. When there is a strong consensus on a scientific issue it is not "fair and balanced" to give equal weight and coverage to both sides. Saying "Some people say evolution happened, some people say no" is no more fair and balanced than saying "some people say the Apollo moon landings happened, some people say they were faked."
>
> It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of biological scientists accept the theory of evolution. You can say they are wrong.
>
No, personally I do not.
> On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 12:44:55 AM UTC-4, R. Dean wrote:
>
>> In going to the Talk Origins FAC, I noted that for references the
>> used Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynment, Futuyma, Stephen Gould
>> Earnst Mayr etc. One can be certain of that this is not a balanced
>> and fair both sides approach.
>
> Of course it's not a balanced approach. As openly stated on the website, the TalkOrigins FAQ outlines the mainstream scientific view of evolution, the view held by the vast majority of biological scientists. When there is a strong consensus on a scientific issue it is not "fair and balanced" to give equal weight and coverage to both sides. Saying "Some people say evolution happened, some people say no" is no more fair and balanced than saying "some people say the Apollo moon landings happened, some people say they were faked."
>
> It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of biological scientists accept the theory of evolution. You can say they are wrong.
>
R. Dean
Mar 27, 2017, 12:29:54 PM3/27/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
civil and polite.
>
>>> And if you claim you don't know what inflaming words of yours I could
>>> possibly be talking about, and as much as I would rather not go
>>> through that effort, I will cite and quote them.
>>>
>>> More to the point, you assert a false equivalence.
>>>
>> Really? How can you prove it's a false equivalency without resorting to
>> sophistry.
>
> Ignoring your pointless demand for "proof", right here would have been
> a good place for you to have identified what parts of my post are
> "sophistry". That you didn't suggests you know your comment is just
> more of your rock throwing.
>
You just make such slanderous statements as "false equivalence" and
>>> And if you claim you don't know what inflaming words of yours I could
>>> possibly be talking about, and as much as I would rather not go
>>> through that effort, I will cite and quote them.
>>>
>>> More to the point, you assert a false equivalence.
>>>
>> Really? How can you prove it's a false equivalency without resorting to
>> sophistry.
>
> Ignoring your pointless demand for "proof", right here would have been
> a good place for you to have identified what parts of my post are
> "sophistry". That you didn't suggests you know your comment is just
> more of your rock throwing.
>
expect me to just accept _your_ accusation? This is where I challenge
your sense of superiority.
>
>> The point is those who hold a different view have the same assured
>> conviction as you of their rightness.
>
>
> Nope, that's not the point. The point is the convictions of
> supporters of unguided evolution are based on hard work, solid
> evidence, and reasoned argument. While the convictions of the other
> side, your side, are based on strawmen and willful ignorance. Your
> posts are good examples of that.
>
Another pronouncement of superiority.
>> The point is those who hold a different view have the same assured
>> conviction as you of their rightness.
>
>
> Nope, that's not the point. The point is the convictions of
> supporters of unguided evolution are based on hard work, solid
> evidence, and reasoned argument. While the convictions of the other
> side, your side, are based on strawmen and willful ignorance. Your
> posts are good examples of that.
>
>
>> But in your self-appointed superiority you can judge them.
>
>
> Nope, that's not it either. I "judge" their *conclusions* based on
> the vacuity of their arguments. My alleged superiority, which I
> neither claimed nor implied, has nothing to do with it. Your ad
> hominems are more of your rock throwing.
>
Right _YOU_ JUDGE!
>> But in your self-appointed superiority you can judge them.
>
>
> Nope, that's not it either. I "judge" their *conclusions* based on
> the vacuity of their arguments. My alleged superiority, which I
> neither claimed nor implied, has nothing to do with it. Your ad
> hominems are more of your rock throwing.
>
>
>> Yes, there are
>>> people who claim academic credentials and personally support ID. But
>>> to the best of my knowledge, whatever those ID scientists have done,
>>> they have not documented any evidence in support of ID. Instead, all
>>> ID scientists I know of who have even attempted to deal with material
>>> evidence, have focused on claims critical of unguided biological
>>> evolution, which is not the same kind of evidence at all.
>>>
>> The biological evidence, is only one aspect of the whole. To be sure
>> Jill, when the major critics of ID, are _not_ open to interpretation
>> of the evidence, that does not align with their own. There are many
>> facts that are presented as evidence of evolution, but could also be
>> seen as evidence of design.
>
>
> Just about anything could be seen as evidence of ID, which is the
> problem. There is nothing that an unknown, unseen, undefined,
> supernatural Designer couldn't do. Such an inference isn't
> falsifiable, and so is scientifically useless.
>
Here you are repeating anti-ID propaganda. Why not think for yourself?
>> Yes, there are
>>> people who claim academic credentials and personally support ID. But
>>> to the best of my knowledge, whatever those ID scientists have done,
>>> they have not documented any evidence in support of ID. Instead, all
>>> ID scientists I know of who have even attempted to deal with material
>>> evidence, have focused on claims critical of unguided biological
>>> evolution, which is not the same kind of evidence at all.
>>>
>> The biological evidence, is only one aspect of the whole. To be sure
>> Jill, when the major critics of ID, are _not_ open to interpretation
>> of the evidence, that does not align with their own. There are many
>> facts that are presented as evidence of evolution, but could also be
>> seen as evidence of design.
>
>
> Just about anything could be seen as evidence of ID, which is the
> problem. There is nothing that an unknown, unseen, undefined,
> supernatural Designer couldn't do. Such an inference isn't
> falsifiable, and so is scientifically useless.
>
>
>>> OTOH there is an abundant and ever-growing body of work which
>>> materially and explicitly supports unguided biological evolution.
>>> Since you seem to doubt the veracity of that statement, you can start
>>> with the talk.origins archives:
>>>
>>> <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>
>>>
>>> Of course, that's been pointed out to you before. And lots of posters
>>> to T.O. have provided lots of cites to scientific articles and books
>>> which document evidence for unguided biological evolution. All of
>>> which you apparently just handwave away, a characteristic behavior
>>> among ID supporters, like Michael Behe did during the Dover trial.
>>>
>> In going to the Talk Origins FAC, I noted that for references the
>> used Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynment, Futuyma, Stephen Gould
>> Earnst Mayr etc. One can be certain of that this is not a balanced
>> and fair both sides approach.
>
> You want fair and balanced? Here's how to get it: back up your
> claims. Don't expect others to do it for you.
>
that does not come under the cloak of naturalism. This applies to
Dawkins Futuyma, Gould etc.. So, design in nature is invisible to
atheism.
>
>>> If you're really interested, here's an "Unannotated Bibliography on
>>> the Evolutionary Origin of the Immune System", which includes the
>>> articles and books which virtually buried Behe on the witness stand:
>>>
>>> <https://ncse.com/creationism/legal/unannotated-bibliography-evolutionary-origin-immune-system>
>>>
>>> So instead of just posting your red herrings above, IMO it would have
>>> been more productive if you had at least tried to answer Ron O's
>>> challenges about Meyer. Of course, evading questions is another
>>> characteristic behavior of ID supporters.
>>>
>> It isn't evading questions when you don't have _all_ the answers.
>
>
> It *is* evading questions when you don't even acknowledge them, and
> instead accuse others of what you do yourself.
>
What question do I evade or fail to acknowledge? If you want to talk
>>> If you're really interested, here's an "Unannotated Bibliography on
>>> the Evolutionary Origin of the Immune System", which includes the
>>> articles and books which virtually buried Behe on the witness stand:
>>>
>>> <https://ncse.com/creationism/legal/unannotated-bibliography-evolutionary-origin-immune-system>
>>>
>>> So instead of just posting your red herrings above, IMO it would have
>>> been more productive if you had at least tried to answer Ron O's
>>> challenges about Meyer. Of course, evading questions is another
>>> characteristic behavior of ID supporters.
>>>
>> It isn't evading questions when you don't have _all_ the answers.
>
>
> It *is* evading questions when you don't even acknowledge them, and
> instead accuse others of what you do yourself.
>
about evasion - I've presented fine tuning of the physical constants
as evidence and asked how could natural forces have tuned the constants,
but only to have the question evaded by turning it back on
me by demanding that I prove that the constants could have been
initially arbitrary. Other means of evasion is to argue that some
future discovery such as the theory of everything (TOE) will explain
the fine tuning, Another evasion tactic is we don't know enough to
answer. Another tact is to drag in the multiverse hypothesis. Clearly
design is verboten and beyond any consideration.
stevet...@gmail.com
Mar 27, 2017, 12:59:55 PM3/27/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
The mere positing of the theory of " Intelligent Design" is its own refutation.
Bill
Mar 27, 2017, 1:29:55 PM3/27/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
stevet...@gmail.com wrote:
> The mere positing of the theory of " Intelligent Design"
> is its own refutation.
Can you explain that? Can you explain why a theory is
> The mere positing of the theory of " Intelligent Design"
> is its own refutation.
required to explain much of anything? Does nature require a
theory to exist, can the truth be true without supporting
theories?
Bill
aug....@gmail.com
Mar 27, 2017, 1:29:55 PM3/27/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
> as an atheist you rule out everything
> that does not come under the cloak of naturalism. This applies to
> Dawkins Futuyma, Gould etc.. So, design in nature is invisible to
> atheism.
stevet...@gmail.com
Mar 27, 2017, 1:54:54 PM3/27/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
evet...@gmail.com wrote:
> The mere positing of the theory of " Intelligent Design"
> is its own refutation.
>>Can you explain that?
It was sarcasm I.e the theory of ID is itself not "intelligently designed"
> The mere positing of the theory of " Intelligent Design"
> is its own refutation.
>>Can you explain that?
>> Can you explain why a theory is
>>required to explain much of anything?
>> Does nature require a
>>theory to exist,
>> can the truth be true without supporting
>>theories?
Sean Dillon
Mar 27, 2017, 2:09:54 PM3/27/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
stevet...@gmail.com
Mar 27, 2017, 2:14:55 PM3/27/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Incidentally, as an outsider to your Abrahamic traditions, why are not all these ID people, who all seem to be religious, not condemned as heretics?.
From my understanding of your holy books they all agee that God created the World in seven days so, to say that years later he took up the hobby of biochemistry to create life , is the height of heresy i.e it contradicts the word of you Quran and your Bible, and in addition is blasphemy as it says He did not get it right in the first place
From my understanding of your holy books they all agee that God created the World in seven days so, to say that years later he took up the hobby of biochemistry to create life , is the height of heresy i.e it contradicts the word of you Quran and your Bible, and in addition is blasphemy as it says He did not get it right in the first place
Robert Camp
Mar 27, 2017, 2:29:54 PM3/27/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Abrahamist traditions. He is much more of a Cannabist. Read enough of
his posts and you'll be ordering pizza before you know it.
Bill Rogers
Mar 27, 2017, 2:44:55 PM3/27/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 11:14:55 AM UTC-4, R. Dean wrote:
> On 3/27/2017 6:46 AM, Bill Rogers wrote:
> > On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 12:44:55 AM UTC-4, R. Dean wrote:
> >
> >> In going to the Talk Origins FAC, I noted that for references the
> >> used Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynment, Futuyma, Stephen Gould
> >> Earnst Mayr etc. One can be certain of that this is not a balanced
> >> and fair both sides approach.
> >
> > Of course it's not a balanced approach. As openly stated on the website, the TalkOrigins FAQ outlines the mainstream scientific view of evolution, the view held by the vast majority of biological scientists. When there is a strong consensus on a scientific issue it is not "fair and balanced" to give equal weight and coverage to both sides. Saying "Some people say evolution happened, some people say no" is no more fair and balanced than saying "some people say the Apollo moon landings happened, some people say they were faked."
> >
> > It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of biological scientists accept the theory of evolution. You can say they are wrong.
> >
> No, personally I do not.
Good, then you shouldn't be surprised that a website promoting the mainstream scientific view of evolution promotes, in fact, the view of the overwhelming majority of biological scientists.
> On 3/27/2017 6:46 AM, Bill Rogers wrote:
> > On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 12:44:55 AM UTC-4, R. Dean wrote:
> >
> >> In going to the Talk Origins FAC, I noted that for references the
> >> used Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynment, Futuyma, Stephen Gould
> >> Earnst Mayr etc. One can be certain of that this is not a balanced
> >> and fair both sides approach.
> >
> > Of course it's not a balanced approach. As openly stated on the website, the TalkOrigins FAQ outlines the mainstream scientific view of evolution, the view held by the vast majority of biological scientists. When there is a strong consensus on a scientific issue it is not "fair and balanced" to give equal weight and coverage to both sides. Saying "Some people say evolution happened, some people say no" is no more fair and balanced than saying "some people say the Apollo moon landings happened, some people say they were faked."
> >
> > It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of biological scientists accept the theory of evolution. You can say they are wrong.
> >
> No, personally I do not.
jillery
Mar 27, 2017, 4:14:54 PM3/27/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 12:31:22 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
You can say whatever you want as many times as you want, but it still
doesn't change a thing. Why even pretend that you didn't describe
RonO's purpose, which you presume without basis, as "mental
masturbation"?
>>>> And if you claim you don't know what inflaming words of yours I could
>>>> possibly be talking about, and as much as I would rather not go
>>>> through that effort, I will cite and quote them.
>>>>
>>>> More to the point, you assert a false equivalence.
>>>>
>>> Really? How can you prove it's a false equivalency without resorting to
>>> sophistry.
>>
>> Ignoring your pointless demand for "proof", right here would have been
>> a good place for you to have identified what parts of my post are
>> "sophistry". That you didn't suggests you know your comment is just
>> more of your rock throwing.
>>
>You just make such slanderous statements as "false equivalence" and
>expect me to just accept _your_ accusation? This is where I challenge
>your sense of superiority.
Point first: a "false equivalence" is not a slanderous statement.
Since you think otherwise, look up "slander" and its cognates in a
good dictionary before you post such an silly assertion again.
Point second: I didn't "just" post that statement, but I also backed
it up, by specifying what I referred to, and where said reference is
found, and what I meant by it.
Point third: NOTA implies or depends on a sense of superiority. Your
ad hominems are just more of your rock throwing.
Point fourth: Instead of repeating your ad-hominem attacks, right here
would have been a good place for you to have backed your claims. That
you again failed to do so suggests that you know you have no idea what
you're talking about, so you can't think of anything better to do than
throw more rocks.
>>> The point is those who hold a different view have the same assured
>>> conviction as you of their rightness.
>>
>>
>> Nope, that's not the point. The point is the convictions of
>> supporters of unguided evolution are based on hard work, solid
>> evidence, and reasoned argument. While the convictions of the other
>> side, your side, are based on strawmen and willful ignorance. Your
>> posts are good examples of that.
>>
>Another pronouncement of superiority.
Your asinine ad hominems hurt your case. You would do better to avoid
them.
>>> But in your self-appointed superiority you can judge them.
>>
>>
>> Nope, that's not it either. I "judge" their *conclusions* based on
>> the vacuity of their arguments. My alleged superiority, which I
>> neither claimed nor implied, has nothing to do with it. Your ad
>> hominems are more of your rock throwing.
>>
>Right _YOU_ JUDGE!
Apparently you make no distinction between objective reality and your
sense of self. Most people I know learned that difference by the time
they became adults.
>>> Yes, there are
>>>> people who claim academic credentials and personally support ID. But
>>>> to the best of my knowledge, whatever those ID scientists have done,
>>>> they have not documented any evidence in support of ID. Instead, all
>>>> ID scientists I know of who have even attempted to deal with material
>>>> evidence, have focused on claims critical of unguided biological
>>>> evolution, which is not the same kind of evidence at all.
>>>>
>>> The biological evidence, is only one aspect of the whole. To be sure
>>> Jill, when the major critics of ID, are _not_ open to interpretation
>>> of the evidence, that does not align with their own. There are many
>>> facts that are presented as evidence of evolution, but could also be
>>> seen as evidence of design.
>>
>>
>> Just about anything could be seen as evidence of ID, which is the
>> problem. There is nothing that an unknown, unseen, undefined,
>> supernatural Designer couldn't do. Such an inference isn't
>> falsifiable, and so is scientifically useless.
>>
>Here you are repeating anti-ID propaganda. Why not think for yourself?
Instead of posting more asinine ad hominems, right here would have
been a good place for you to have cited something... anything... which
refutes said alleged "anti-ID propaganda". That you didn't suggests
you know of none, so you can't think of anything better to do than
throw more rocks.
>>>> OTOH there is an abundant and ever-growing body of work which
>>>> materially and explicitly supports unguided biological evolution.
>>>> Since you seem to doubt the veracity of that statement, you can start
>>>> with the talk.origins archives:
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>
>>>>
>>>> Of course, that's been pointed out to you before. And lots of posters
>>>> to T.O. have provided lots of cites to scientific articles and books
>>>> which document evidence for unguided biological evolution. All of
>>>> which you apparently just handwave away, a characteristic behavior
>>>> among ID supporters, like Michael Behe did during the Dover trial.
>>>>
>>> In going to the Talk Origins FAC, I noted that for references the
>>> used Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynment, Futuyma, Stephen Gould
>>> Earnst Mayr etc. One can be certain of that this is not a balanced
>>> and fair both sides approach.
>>
>> You want fair and balanced? Here's how to get it: back up your
>> claims. Don't expect others to do it for you.
>>
>I cannot rule out anything, as an atheist you rule out everything
>that does not come under the cloak of naturalism. This applies to
>Dawkins Futuyma, Gould etc.. So, design in nature is invisible to
>atheism.
Non sequiturs "R" Dean.
>>>> If you're really interested, here's an "Unannotated Bibliography on
>>>> the Evolutionary Origin of the Immune System", which includes the
>>>> articles and books which virtually buried Behe on the witness stand:
>>>>
>>>> <https://ncse.com/creationism/legal/unannotated-bibliography-evolutionary-origin-immune-system>
>>>>
>>>> So instead of just posting your red herrings above, IMO it would have
>>>> been more productive if you had at least tried to answer Ron O's
>>>> challenges about Meyer. Of course, evading questions is another
>>>> characteristic behavior of ID supporters.
>>>>
>>> It isn't evading questions when you don't have _all_ the answers.
>>
>>
>> It *is* evading questions when you don't even acknowledge them, and
>> instead accuse others of what you do yourself.
> >
>What question do I evade or fail to acknowledge?
Really? Do you really not know how to recognize a written question?
Read the OP, the one to which you replied without answering any of the
questions posted in it. This time, look for the "?" character at the
end of sentences. Those sentences are the questions you conveniently
ignored. Most people I know learned how to recognize a written
question by the time they got out of grade school.
>If you want to talk
>about evasion - I've presented fine tuning of the physical constants
>as evidence and asked how could natural forces have tuned the constants,
>but only to have the question evaded by turning it back on
>me by demanding that I prove that the constants could have been
>initially arbitrary. Other means of evasion is to argue that some
>future discovery such as the theory of everything (TOE) will explain
>the fine tuning, Another evasion tactic is we don't know enough to
>answer. Another tact is to drag in the multiverse hypothesis. Clearly
>design is verboten and beyond any consideration.
And how 'bout them Mets.
doesn't change a thing. Why even pretend that you didn't describe
RonO's purpose, which you presume without basis, as "mental
masturbation"?
>>>> And if you claim you don't know what inflaming words of yours I could
>>>> possibly be talking about, and as much as I would rather not go
>>>> through that effort, I will cite and quote them.
>>>>
>>>> More to the point, you assert a false equivalence.
>>>>
>>> Really? How can you prove it's a false equivalency without resorting to
>>> sophistry.
>>
>> Ignoring your pointless demand for "proof", right here would have been
>> a good place for you to have identified what parts of my post are
>> "sophistry". That you didn't suggests you know your comment is just
>> more of your rock throwing.
>>
>You just make such slanderous statements as "false equivalence" and
>expect me to just accept _your_ accusation? This is where I challenge
>your sense of superiority.
Since you think otherwise, look up "slander" and its cognates in a
good dictionary before you post such an silly assertion again.
Point second: I didn't "just" post that statement, but I also backed
it up, by specifying what I referred to, and where said reference is
found, and what I meant by it.
Point third: NOTA implies or depends on a sense of superiority. Your
ad hominems are just more of your rock throwing.
Point fourth: Instead of repeating your ad-hominem attacks, right here
would have been a good place for you to have backed your claims. That
you again failed to do so suggests that you know you have no idea what
you're talking about, so you can't think of anything better to do than
throw more rocks.
>>> The point is those who hold a different view have the same assured
>>> conviction as you of their rightness.
>>
>>
>> Nope, that's not the point. The point is the convictions of
>> supporters of unguided evolution are based on hard work, solid
>> evidence, and reasoned argument. While the convictions of the other
>> side, your side, are based on strawmen and willful ignorance. Your
>> posts are good examples of that.
>>
>Another pronouncement of superiority.
them.
>>> But in your self-appointed superiority you can judge them.
>>
>>
>> Nope, that's not it either. I "judge" their *conclusions* based on
>> the vacuity of their arguments. My alleged superiority, which I
>> neither claimed nor implied, has nothing to do with it. Your ad
>> hominems are more of your rock throwing.
>>
>Right _YOU_ JUDGE!
sense of self. Most people I know learned that difference by the time
they became adults.
>>> Yes, there are
>>>> people who claim academic credentials and personally support ID. But
>>>> to the best of my knowledge, whatever those ID scientists have done,
>>>> they have not documented any evidence in support of ID. Instead, all
>>>> ID scientists I know of who have even attempted to deal with material
>>>> evidence, have focused on claims critical of unguided biological
>>>> evolution, which is not the same kind of evidence at all.
>>>>
>>> The biological evidence, is only one aspect of the whole. To be sure
>>> Jill, when the major critics of ID, are _not_ open to interpretation
>>> of the evidence, that does not align with their own. There are many
>>> facts that are presented as evidence of evolution, but could also be
>>> seen as evidence of design.
>>
>>
>> Just about anything could be seen as evidence of ID, which is the
>> problem. There is nothing that an unknown, unseen, undefined,
>> supernatural Designer couldn't do. Such an inference isn't
>> falsifiable, and so is scientifically useless.
>>
>Here you are repeating anti-ID propaganda. Why not think for yourself?
been a good place for you to have cited something... anything... which
refutes said alleged "anti-ID propaganda". That you didn't suggests
you know of none, so you can't think of anything better to do than
throw more rocks.
>>>> OTOH there is an abundant and ever-growing body of work which
>>>> materially and explicitly supports unguided biological evolution.
>>>> Since you seem to doubt the veracity of that statement, you can start
>>>> with the talk.origins archives:
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>
>>>>
>>>> Of course, that's been pointed out to you before. And lots of posters
>>>> to T.O. have provided lots of cites to scientific articles and books
>>>> which document evidence for unguided biological evolution. All of
>>>> which you apparently just handwave away, a characteristic behavior
>>>> among ID supporters, like Michael Behe did during the Dover trial.
>>>>
>>> In going to the Talk Origins FAC, I noted that for references the
>>> used Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynment, Futuyma, Stephen Gould
>>> Earnst Mayr etc. One can be certain of that this is not a balanced
>>> and fair both sides approach.
>>
>> You want fair and balanced? Here's how to get it: back up your
>> claims. Don't expect others to do it for you.
>>
>I cannot rule out anything, as an atheist you rule out everything
>that does not come under the cloak of naturalism. This applies to
>Dawkins Futuyma, Gould etc.. So, design in nature is invisible to
>atheism.
>>>> If you're really interested, here's an "Unannotated Bibliography on
>>>> the Evolutionary Origin of the Immune System", which includes the
>>>> articles and books which virtually buried Behe on the witness stand:
>>>>
>>>> <https://ncse.com/creationism/legal/unannotated-bibliography-evolutionary-origin-immune-system>
>>>>
>>>> So instead of just posting your red herrings above, IMO it would have
>>>> been more productive if you had at least tried to answer Ron O's
>>>> challenges about Meyer. Of course, evading questions is another
>>>> characteristic behavior of ID supporters.
>>>>
>>> It isn't evading questions when you don't have _all_ the answers.
>>
>>
>> It *is* evading questions when you don't even acknowledge them, and
>> instead accuse others of what you do yourself.
> >
>What question do I evade or fail to acknowledge?
Read the OP, the one to which you replied without answering any of the
questions posted in it. This time, look for the "?" character at the
end of sentences. Those sentences are the questions you conveniently
ignored. Most people I know learned how to recognize a written
question by the time they got out of grade school.
>If you want to talk
>about evasion - I've presented fine tuning of the physical constants
>as evidence and asked how could natural forces have tuned the constants,
>but only to have the question evaded by turning it back on
>me by demanding that I prove that the constants could have been
>initially arbitrary. Other means of evasion is to argue that some
>future discovery such as the theory of everything (TOE) will explain
>the fine tuning, Another evasion tactic is we don't know enough to
>answer. Another tact is to drag in the multiverse hypothesis. Clearly
>design is verboten and beyond any consideration.
jillery
Mar 27, 2017, 4:14:56 PM3/27/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
intended purpose.
HTH but I doubt it.
R. Dean
Mar 27, 2017, 5:39:55 PM3/27/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 3/27/2017 4:10 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 12:31:22 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
>
>
I'm not going to respond to this Jill. It's futile and only adds to
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 12:31:22 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
>
>
other unrelated, but existing frustration. I'm in a terrible frame
of mind right now. I've far too many other concerns on my plate right now.
Bill
Mar 27, 2017, 6:39:54 PM3/27/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
aug....@gmail.com wrote:
>> I cannot rule out anything,
>
> That's part of your problem. Things for which there is no
> evidence ought to be ruled out as there is no reason to
> take a claim seriously until there is evidence that
> supports it.
It's really not that simple. The notion of evidence includes
>> I cannot rule out anything,
>
> That's part of your problem. Things for which there is no
> evidence ought to be ruled out as there is no reason to
> take a claim seriously until there is evidence that
> supports it.
only what you accept as evidence. There can be no evidence
for things you don't believe exist. The evidence is not the
point, only what you first believe is real prior to the
evidence. It's a kind of circular confirmation bias. In this
scenario you will always be right even when you're wrong.
Tack on a few assumptions about what should be true and
evidence becomes a self-perpetuating feedback loop. When
this happens, a concept of evidence becomes empty and
meaningless. All that really happens is that tradition
becomes enshrined as established fact.
Bill
Bill Rogers
Mar 27, 2017, 7:44:54 PM3/27/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Bill
Mar 27, 2017, 8:59:54 PM3/27/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
isn't an issue. I didn't see any specific points requiring a
specific example, just general generalities. Feel free to
provide something for which a specific example is
appropriate.
Bill
August Rode
Mar 27, 2017, 10:39:55 PM3/27/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 2017-03-27 18:38, Bill wrote:
> aug....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> I cannot rule out anything,
>>
>> That's part of your problem. Things for which there is no
>> evidence ought to be ruled out as there is no reason to
>> take a claim seriously until there is evidence that
>> supports it.
>
> It's really not that simple. The notion of evidence includes
> only what you accept as evidence. There can be no evidence
> for things you don't believe exist.
That's untrue. There was a time in which it was believed (by Europeans
> aug....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> I cannot rule out anything,
>>
>> That's part of your problem. Things for which there is no
>> evidence ought to be ruled out as there is no reason to
>> take a claim seriously until there is evidence that
>> supports it.
>
> It's really not that simple. The notion of evidence includes
> only what you accept as evidence. There can be no evidence
> for things you don't believe exist.
at least) that all swans are white. That is, no European believed that
black swans existed. Evidence in the form of black swans, discovered in
Australia, showed that belief to be false.
There definitely can be evidence for things you don't believe exist.
There can even be evidence for things you believe don't exist.
> The evidence is not the
> point, only what you first believe is real prior to the
> evidence. It's a kind of circular confirmation bias. In this
> scenario you will always be right even when you're wrong.
hard evidence.
> Tack on a few assumptions about what should be true and
> evidence becomes a self-perpetuating feedback loop. When
> this happens, a concept of evidence becomes empty and
> meaningless. All that really happens is that tradition
> becomes enshrined as established fact.
jillery
Mar 27, 2017, 11:39:54 PM3/27/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 17:41:43 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On 3/27/2017 4:10 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 12:31:22 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
> >
> >
>I'm not going to respond to this Jill. It's futile and only adds to
>other unrelated, but existing frustration. I'm in a terrible frame
>of mind right now. I've far too many other concerns on my plate right now.
I regret that you feel poorly, but this isn't the first time you
didn't respond, and it almost certainly won't be the last. You could
have saved yourself the trouble by not posting anything in the first
place.
wrote:
>On 3/27/2017 4:10 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 12:31:22 -0400, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>
> >
> >
>I'm not going to respond to this Jill. It's futile and only adds to
>other unrelated, but existing frustration. I'm in a terrible frame
>of mind right now. I've far too many other concerns on my plate right now.
didn't respond, and it almost certainly won't be the last. You could
have saved yourself the trouble by not posting anything in the first
place.
Ernest Major
Mar 28, 2017, 2:24:54 AM3/28/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
told several more elsewhere in the Bible) suggests that they were not
understood as historical accounts by the people who compiled the Torah.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
Mar 28, 2017, 2:29:54 AM3/28/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 27/03/2017 19:13, stevet...@gmail.com wrote:
> Incidentally, as an outsider to your Abrahamic traditions, why are not all these ID people, who all seem to be religious, not condemned as heretics?.
>
> From my understanding of your holy books they all agee that God created the World in seven days so, to say that years later he took up the hobby of biochemistry to create life , is the height of heresy i.e it contradicts the word of you Quran and your Bible, and in addition is blasphemy as it says He did not get it right in the first place
>
I think you have it backwards. It's creationism which is the heresy.
> Incidentally, as an outsider to your Abrahamic traditions, why are not all these ID people, who all seem to be religious, not condemned as heretics?.
>
> From my understanding of your holy books they all agee that God created the World in seven days so, to say that years later he took up the hobby of biochemistry to create life , is the height of heresy i.e it contradicts the word of you Quran and your Bible, and in addition is blasphemy as it says He did not get it right in the first place
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
Mar 28, 2017, 2:34:54 AM3/28/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 27/03/2017 23:38, Bill wrote:
> aug....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> I cannot rule out anything,
>>
>> That's part of your problem. Things for which there is no
>> evidence ought to be ruled out as there is no reason to
>> take a claim seriously until there is evidence that
>> supports it.
>
> It's really not that simple. The notion of evidence includes
> only what you accept as evidence. There can be no evidence
> for things you don't believe exist. The evidence is not the
> point, only what you first believe is real prior to the
> evidence. It's a kind of circular confirmation bias. In this
> scenario you will always be right even when you're wrong.
There is evidence for the existence of the Loch Ness Monster. I don't
> aug....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> I cannot rule out anything,
>>
>> That's part of your problem. Things for which there is no
>> evidence ought to be ruled out as there is no reason to
>> take a claim seriously until there is evidence that
>> supports it.
>
> It's really not that simple. The notion of evidence includes
> only what you accept as evidence. There can be no evidence
> for things you don't believe exist. The evidence is not the
> point, only what you first believe is real prior to the
> evidence. It's a kind of circular confirmation bias. In this
> scenario you will always be right even when you're wrong.
believe that the Loch Ness Monster exists. (I think that the evidence is
misinterpreted.)
That falsifies one of your axioms.
>
> Tack on a few assumptions about what should be true and
> evidence becomes a self-perpetuating feedback loop. When
> this happens, a concept of evidence becomes empty and
> meaningless. All that really happens is that tradition
> becomes enshrined as established fact.
>
> Bill
>
--
> Tack on a few assumptions about what should be true and
> evidence becomes a self-perpetuating feedback loop. When
> this happens, a concept of evidence becomes empty and
> meaningless. All that really happens is that tradition
> becomes enshrined as established fact.
>
> Bill
>
alias Ernest Major
Andrew Haley
Mar 28, 2017, 5:39:55 AM3/28/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
anything, but they did ask you to explain why you thought that the
constants must be variable. Even a professor of physics pointed this
problem with oyur argument out to you, apparently without any effect.
Here is one of several exchanges:
> > On 2/13/2017 5:21 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >>
> >> You still haven't explained why you believe this. You still don't
> >> seem to have absorbed the idea that the fundamental constants might
> >> not actually be random variables. Instead, you have assumed, without
> >> any evidence or explanation, that they must be random, and not only
> >> random, infinitely variable. You haven't provided any justification
> >> for this claim, or expressed any reason that anybody else might
> >> believe it.
> >
> > If you think there is something that could actually set the
> > values of the constants, please explain. Otherwise, the
> > logical conclusion is, there is none.
>
> There is no more reason to assume that the fundamental constants might
> be variable than there is that they might be constant. I'll rephrase
> what you just said with that in mind:
>
> If you think there is something that could actually vary the values
> of the constants, please explain. Otherwise, the logical conclusion
> is, there is none.
>
> That makes just as much sense as what you just said.
No reply from you was forthcoming.
Andrew.
Bill Rogers
Mar 28, 2017, 7:54:54 AM3/28/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Burkhard
Mar 28, 2017, 9:44:55 AM3/28/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Bill wrote:
> aug....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> I cannot rule out anything,
>>
>> That's part of your problem. Things for which there is no
>> evidence ought to be ruled out as there is no reason to
>> take a claim seriously until there is evidence that
>> supports it.
>
> It's really not that simple. The notion of evidence includes
> only what you accept as evidence. There can be no evidence
> for things you don't believe exist.
Erm, nonsense. It is perfectly possible, and indeed done quite often, to
> aug....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> I cannot rule out anything,
>>
>> That's part of your problem. Things for which there is no
>> evidence ought to be ruled out as there is no reason to
>> take a claim seriously until there is evidence that
>> supports it.
>
> It's really not that simple. The notion of evidence includes
> only what you accept as evidence. There can be no evidence
> for things you don't believe exist.
evaluate the evidence that exist/existed for phrenology, the luminferous
aether or the authorship of Edward de Vere of the works attribute to
Shakespeare - notwithstanding that they are all, on the overwhelming
balance of evidence, wrong.
Indeed, the very expression "on the balance of evidence" indicates that
we routinely balance and evaluate evidence for things we ultimately
decide do not exist/did not happen.
It does require however intellectual rigour and work, something you
consistently eschew for your facile and lazy nihilism.
Eric
Mar 28, 2017, 1:14:54 PM3/28/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
The difference is that those on the evolution side have millions of peer reviewed research papers to back their position. The ID crowd does not.
The paucity of ID peer research papers demonstrates that it isn't science. Science is first and foremost an activity, and people are not using ID as a basis for doing science. No one is submitting ID papers. No one is doing experiments to test hypotheses based on ID. No one is submitting research grants to study ID. Evolution, on the other hand . . .
Rolf
Mar 29, 2017, 4:39:54 PM3/29/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
"Eric" <emci...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:03b4e31b-83ff-403d...@googlegroups.com...
cannot do than about how ID works.
RonO
Mar 29, 2017, 8:49:58 PM3/29/17
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
is. What is in the quote above that you did not snip out? Does anyone
ever get the promised ID science to teach in the public schools? The
bait and switch is a scam. The ID perps sold you the lie that they had
the ID science to teach to kids, but when it came time to put up or shut
up what did the ID perps do? Why has no one ever gotten the promised ID
science when they need it? Why do the ID perps only give the rubes an
obfuscation scam that doesn't even mention that ID ever existed.
The creationist ID perps are not running the bait and switch on the
science side. They are running the scam on their own creationist
support base. Creationists just as clueless as you are falling for the
scam.
If you do not understand that by this time you really are a lost cause.
How many years has the bait and switch gone down? How many school
boards and legislators never got the promised ID science? The bait and
switch has been going down for over 15 years and we still have IDiots
like you. Just because you don't want to understand the science doesn't
mean much. It isn't a scam just because you want to remain willfully
ignorant of the science.
Just think for a moment about how lost you have to be to not understand
what a scam ID is at this time. Has anyone ever gotten the promised ID
science? What do they get instead from the ID perps that sold them the
ID scam?
Ron Okimoto
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
0 new messages