Science be damned!
Gerard
University article, evolutionists showed their true colors and their
foolishness. The article I am referring to is located at
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/60/95O56/index.xml?section=topstories,
and this gives us a great example of why science, at least in terms of
discerning the origins of life, is completely flawed and
contradictary. Especially in arguing against Intelligent Design
theory.
From the article: "The authors sought to identify the underlying
cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein
chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues. Applying the
concepts of control theory, a body of knowledge that deals with the
behavior of dynamical systems, the researchers concluded that this
self-correcting behavior could only be possible if, during the early
stages of evolution, the proteins had developed a self-regulating
mechanism, analogous to a car's cruise control or a home's thermostat,
allowing them to fine-tune and control their subsequent evolution. The
scientists are working on formulating a new general theory based on
this finding they are calling "evolutionary control."
Here you have it layed out right in plain sight. Another example of
science damning itself to future rejection by what is hopefully a more
saner, honest and intelligent society. Scientists, convinced, absent
any evidence that evolution is true and Intelligent Design is wrong,
observe and study in that mindset. In this article, they are actually
contradicting themselves by admitting that an intelligent, dynamic and
complex mechanism guided or controlled, yes, even designed
evolutionary success. In denying intelligent design they pointed out
intelligent design.
They are damning themselves.
;-)
Prof Weird
> Evolution exposed. Science be damned. In the recent Princeton
> University article, evolutionists showed their true colors and their
> and this gives us a great example of why science, at least in terms of
> discerning the origins of life, is completely flawed and
> contradictary. Especially in arguing against Intelligent Design
> theory.
Too bad that the press release DOES NOT SUPPORT INTELLIGENT DESIGN
'theory' !
Nor does it deal with origin of life.
A part from the PRESS RELEASE you missed :
"Chakrabarti and Rabitz analyzed these observations of the proteins'
behavior from a mathematical standpoint, concluding that it would be
statistically impossible for this self-correcting behavior to be
random, and demonstrating that the observed result is precisely that
predicted by the equations of control theory. By operating only at
extremes, referred to in control theory as "bang-bang extremization,"
the proteins were exhibiting behavior *consistent with a system
managing itself optimally under evolution.*
"In this paper, we present what is ostensibly the first quantitative
experimental evidence, since Wallace's original proposal, that nature
employs *evolutionary control strategies to maximize the fitness of
biological networks*," Chakrabarti said. "Control theory offers a
direct explanation for an otherwise perplexing observation and
indicates that *evolution is operating according to principles that
every engineer knows."*
The scientists do not know how the cellular machinery guiding this
process may have originated, but they emphatically said * it does not
buttress the case for intelligent design, a controversial notion that
posits the existence of a creator responsible for complexity in
nature.*"
-----
EGADS !! You know you're a blithering twit when the articles YOU
YOURSELF CITE state the opposite of what you claim they do !
----
"Chakrabarti said that one of the aims of modern evolutionary theory
is to identify principles of self-organization that can accelerate the
generation of complex biological structures. "Such principles are
*fully consistent with the principles of natural selection. Biological
change is always driven by random mutation and selection, but at
certain pivotal junctures in evolutionary history, such random
processes can create structures capable of steering subsequent
evolution toward greater sophistication and complexity."*
> From the article: "The authors sought to identify the underlying
> cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein
> chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues. Applying the
> concepts of control theory, a body of knowledge that deals with the
> behavior of dynamical systems, the researchers concluded that this
> self-correcting behavior could only be possible if, during the early
> stages of evolution, the proteins had developed a self-regulating
> mechanism, analogous to a car's cruise control or a home's thermostat,
> allowing them to fine-tune and control their subsequent evolution. The
> scientists are working on formulating a new general theory based on
> this finding they are calling "evolutionary control."
And, like most blithering simpletons that read ONLY for things to
misrepresent or misunderstand, you stopped reading at that point,
since you 'thought' the PRESS RELEASE somehow supported your
delusions.
Had you read farther, you'd see they but they emphatically said : "it
does not buttress the case for intelligent design, a controversial
notion that posits the existence of a creator responsible for
complexity in nature."
> Here you have it layed out right in plain sight.
Yes, the fact you are a simpleton is indeed out in plain sight.
> Another example of
> science damning itself to future rejection by what is hopefully a more
> saner, honest and intelligent society. Scientists, convinced, absent
> any evidence that evolution is true and Intelligent Design is wrong,
> observe and study in that mindset.
Too bad that there is evidence that evolution is right, and nothing to
support Magical Skymanism/'Intelligent' Design except willfull
stupidity, arguments from personal incredulity, arguments from adverse
consequences, and other known fallacies.
And just how, EXACTLY, is blubbering 'DESIGNERDIDIT !!!1!1!1!!' of any
use whatsoever ?
> In this article, they are actually
> contradicting themselves by admitting that an intelligent, dynamic and
> complex mechanism guided or controlled, yes, even designed
> evolutionary success. In denying intelligent design they pointed out
> intelligent design.
>
> They are damning themselves.
> ;-)
Not really, given the FACT that even YOUR OWN LINK states the
researchers state their work DOES NOT SUPPORT INTELLIGENT DESIGN, nor
actually harms evolution in any way.
The ACTUAL article can be found here :
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0806/0806.2331v1.pdf
From the article : "Optimal control theory provides an explanation for
the observed behavior that's FULLY CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT
EVOLUTIONARY THEORY, based on minimal additional assumptions."
Note : NONE of those minimal additional assumptions are 'Intelligent
Designers' of any sort ....
wf3h
>
> Here you have it layed out right in plain sight. Another example of
> science damning itself to future rejection by what is hopefully a more
> saner, honest and intelligent society. Scientists, convinced, absent
> any evidence that evolution is true and Intelligent Design is wrong,
> observe and study in that mindset. In this article, they are actually
> contradicting themselves by admitting that an intelligent, dynamic and
> complex mechanism guided or controlled, yes, even designed
> evolutionary success. In denying intelligent design they pointed out
> intelligent design.
gee. where is the intelligence in the mechanism? are you saying
proteins are intelligent?
seems you're willing to call ANYTHING intelligent. even yourself
and that's a tragedy
hersheyh
> University article, evolutionists showed their true colors and their
Before replying, note the ;-) at the end.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
What then is Gerard saying at the end in relation to his message?
Ray
VoiceOfReason
Gerard wrote:
> Evolution exposed. Science be damned. ...
I take it you'll stop using your computer now?
Gerard
You said "Too bad that there is evidence that evolution is right, and
nothing to
support Magical Skymanism/'Intelligent' Design except willfull
stupidity, arguments from personal incredulity, arguments from
adverse
consequences, and other known fallacies."
No, there's alot of misplaced, misrepresented or misinterpreted
evidence. Why? Because they are digging hard for substantiation of a
godless explanation for our origins. People do alot of weird things to
cover up their deepest darkest secrets. Guilt does that to you. And it
is my expressed opinon that that is the case with this theory. Alot of
people share this godless agenda due to similiar sin habits and
rebellious attitudes OR similiar egotism.
Now I'm not saying that science cannot and does not demonstrate
evolution perse. We see evolution taking place in bacterias and
viruses. However, since these examples fall short in revealing complex
development in life and deal with areas addressed thousands of years
ago (death and disease processes) as a divine decree, we cannot accept
it as solid, telling evidence. Science needs to observe real evolution
in relation to the theory of evolution history. Show life actually
changing in terms of complexity, new structures or organ functions in
advanced lifeforms. This can be done if indeed evolution theory is
correct. It has failed thus far in many species including pidgeons,
moths, flies to name a few.
Design is addressed in the article. Call it self design if you will,
but intelligence is intelligence. Its the acquiring of information and
the utilization of that information. Until they can demonstrate how an
ability to write information, to encode information, to store
information, to decode information, to apply information all could've
evolved, they'll have to accept, at least until they do this,
intelligent information was from an intelligent source, a source
unrelated to randomness or disorder. Information, insofar as its
usefulness for productive creation is indeed ordered for just that
purpose. And its very difficult to accept the notion that the ability
to write this useful information could've have been established from
random chemical reactions. With discussions now going on about quantum
information channeling, we now know that scientists are beginning to
acknowledge the possibility that information can be delivered through
the sub atomic particles to the material universe. This is a more
logical understanding of the origins of life. The materialization of
the universe and all life by design from an extrauniversal source.
It's not passing the buck, its not special pleading, its just where
the scientific information seems to lead us in concluding. It's also
refreshing that the God of the Catholic church has all of the pre-
declared attributes which qualify him as being the source of what
science is now discovering.
Gerard
Let's not panic now. I'm merely saying that scientists are abusing
their fields.
Baron Bodissey
<snip>
> No, there's alot of misplaced, misrepresented or misinterpreted
<snip>
Be specific.
Baron Bodissey
When science is on the march, nothing stands in its way.
– Amazon Women on the Moon
chris thompson
Are you talking about the agronomists at Archer-Daniels-Midland?
Iain
Stuart
> Evolution exposed. Science be damned. In the recent Princeton
> University article, evolutionists showed their true colors and their
> and this gives us a great example of why science, at least in terms of
> discerning the origins of life, is completely flawed and
> contradictary. Especially in arguing against Intelligent Design
> theory.
>
> From the article: "The authors sought to identify the underlying
> cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein
> chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues. Applying the
> concepts of control theory, a body of knowledge that deals with the
> behavior of dynamical systems, the researchers concluded that this
> self-correcting behavior could only be possible if, during the early
> stages of evolution, the proteins had developed a self-regulating
> mechanism, analogous to a car's cruise control or a home's thermostat,
> allowing them to fine-tune and control their subsequent evolution.
This is retarded.
Sorry. Unless the adjustments made by the self-regulating system can
be written back into the genetic code and passed onto future
generations, it has little bearing on subsequent evolution.
The only way to make sense of the above statement, is that possibly it
is alluding to why stasis occurs. But even that's a stretch.
> The
> scientists are working on formulating a new general theory based on
> this finding they are calling "evolutionary control."
>
> Here you have it layed out right in plain sight. Another example of
> science damning itself to future rejection by what is hopefully a more
> saner, honest and intelligent society. Scientists, convinced, absent
> any evidence that evolution is true and Intelligent Design is wrong,
> observe and study in that mindset. In this article, they are actually
> contradicting themselves by admitting that an intelligent, dynamic and
> complex mechanism guided or controlled, yes, even designed
> evolutionary success. In denying intelligent design they pointed out
> intelligent design.
>
> They are damning themselves.
> ;-)
Laughable.
So they found a feedback system operating within the cellular level.
This is a profound discovery? I don't think so.
Our bodies are feedback systems. We have a number of feedbacks that
help us maintain homeostasis. Its not surprising that this happens on
the cellular level.
Oh.. I'm sorry, did you have a point?
Stuart
Louann Miller
12317e...@q9g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
> Evolution exposed. Science be damned. In the recent Princeton
> University article, evolutionists showed their true colors and their
> foolishness.
Maybe God isn't as freaky paranoid and insecure as you are.
JohnN
>
> Before replying, note the ;-) at the end.-
I think it was too small for some people to read.
JohnN
Prof Weird
> On Nov 20, 3:01 pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
[big snip of material here]
>
> You said "Too bad that there is evidence that evolution is right, and
> nothing to
> support Magical Skymanism/'Intelligent' Design except willfull
> stupidity, arguments from personal incredulity, arguments from
> adverse
> consequences, and other known fallacies."
>
> No, there's alot of misplaced, misrepresented or misinterpreted
> evidence.
Such as ? And you 'determined' that it is 'misplaced, misrepresented
or misinterpreted' HOW, exactly ?
Oh, right - it does not conform to your willful ignorance, so it be
wrong because you say so.
> Why? Because they are digging hard for substantiation of a
> godless explanation for our origins.
Wow - MULTIPLE delusions in one sentence !!
1. Not everyone that accepts the validity of evolution is an atheist.
2. Evolution is NOT origins - that would be abiogenesis.
3. Silly idea that evolution is not supported by evidence (ie,
evolution is substantiated; your inability/unwillingness to accept
that is of no real relevance).
Initiating projection :
> People do alot of weird things to
> cover up their deepest darkest secrets. Guilt does that to you. And it
> is my expressed opinon that that is the case with this theory. Alot of
> people share this godless agenda due to similiar sin habits and
> rebellious attitudes OR similiar egotism.
RiiIIiiIIiiight !
And why, EXACTLY, should anyone feel guilty about not conforming to
your delusions ?
Christian cliches # 9, 10, 19, 22 :
http://www.weirdcrap.com/recreational/cliche.html
> Now I'm not saying that science cannot and does not demonstrate
> evolution per se. We see evolution taking place in bacterias and
> viruses. However, since these examples fall short in revealing complex
> development in life and deal with areas addressed thousands of years
> ago (death and disease processes) as a divine decree, we cannot accept
> it as solid, telling evidence.
Ah, you're one of those simpering idiots that decrees 'it is possible
to walk across the street, but it is IMPOSSIBLE !!11!1!!!!! to walk
across town !!11!!1!!!!1'. If the evidence does not conform to your
interpretation of ancient morality tales, it is bent or ignored.
We see evolution happening in more complex critters as well - insects,
plants, etc.
Are you implying that death and disease did NOT exist until a few
thousand years ago ?
> Science needs to observe real evolution
> in relation to the theory of evolution history. Show life actually
> changing in terms of complexity, new structures or organ functions in
> advanced lifeforms.
Check the fossil record - it demonstrates what you demand quite well.
Oh, right - you'll just frantically wave your hands then pull some
excuse out of your arse as to why they don't count.
> This can be done if indeed evolution theory is
> correct. It has failed thus far in many species including pidgeons,
> moths, flies to name a few.
Oh - you're actually STUPID enough to 'believe' that massive changes
must happen within a timescale that you can understand and observe !
I didn't believe people so idiotic still existed in this day and age !
Standard creotardic arrogance : 'if evolution does not work at the
rate and the ways that *I* can understand, then it be false !!11!!1
For my blithering incredulity is irrefutable evidence of impossibity,
for if *I* can't/won't understand something, no one on earth can
either, and so the only possible explanation is direct intervention by
a Magical Sky Pixie/'Intelligent Designer !!1!11!!'
> Design is addressed in the article. Call it self design if you will,
> but intelligence is intelligence. Its the acquiring of information and
> the utilization of that information.
Standard IDiot routine : redefine intelligence (and any/all other
terms) until ANY ordering process qualifies as 'intelligence'.
> Until they can demonstrate how an
> ability to write information, to encode information, to store
> information, to decode information, to apply information all could've
> evolved, they'll have to accept, at least until they do this,
> intelligent information was from an intelligent source, a source
> unrelated to randomness or disorder.
Ah, standard creotardic negative argumentation : 'if science can't
explain something to MY satisfaction, the only explanation is divine
intervention !1!1!!!!!' - ie, the fallacy of the stolen default.
Information is an abstract quantity; random mutation coupled to
SELECTION can indeed 'write' 'information' into the genome -
variations that grant a slight advantage to living long enough to
reproduce tend to become more common in the gene pool. End result
over several generations - well adapted critters that (if one were
slack-witted enough to 'see' God behind every tree and under every
rock) LOOKS like it was designed by an external intelligent agent.
> Information, insofar as its
> usefulness for productive creation is indeed ordered for just that
> purpose.
And RM/NS can generate it; it's just that IDiots refuse to accept that
fact (being intent on seeing the Magical Sky Pixie's fingerprints
everywhere, they 'interpret' the results of any ordering process as an
application of intelligence).
> And its very difficult to accept the notion that the ability
> to write this useful information could've have been established from
> random chemical reactions.
And your inability/unwillingness to accept something is relevant WHY ?
You DO know that SELECTION is not random, right ? That not all
configurations of atoms are equally stable or useful in any given
environs ?
Genetic 'information' is 'written' by the sequence of bases; it does
not require application of external intellect.
> With discussions now going on about quantum
> information channeling, we now know that scientists are beginning to
> acknowledge the possibility that information can be delivered through
> the sub atomic particles to the material universe.
RiiiiIIiiIGHT - invoke quantum woo to evade reality ! How very
trekkie of you !
Isn't that idea one of Dembski's delusions - that a quantum wave with
infinite wavelength can somehow impart useful 'information' on the
material world ? It is a useless explanation in need of something to
actually explain.
> This is a more
> logical understanding of the origins of life. The materialization of
> the universe and all life by design from an extrauniversal source.
RiiiIIiiIIiiIIiight ! Magic by a different name. Why bother trying
to understand how the world works when one can just drop to their
knees and blubber 'GAWDDIDIT !!!1!1!1!'.
How, EXACTLY, does 'An unknown being somehow did stuff sometime in the
past !!!1!1' qualify as a valid or useful answer ? Or even an answer
of any sort ?
If something as complex as life MUST have been designed, then WHO
DESIGNED THE DESIGNER OF LIFE ?
Oh, right - standard evasion of special bleating : 'but, but - ALL
complex things MUST be designed !!1!1 EXCEPT my Intelligent Designer
(who is far more complex than everything else in the universe but does
NOT require a designer !!!!')'
> It's not passing the buck, its not special pleading, its just where
> the scientific information seems to lead us in concluding.
Nope - that's where your religion-addled 'interpretation' of sciences
you don't understand seems to be 'leading'.
> It's also
> refreshing that the God of the Catholic church has all of the pre-
> declared attributes which qualify him as being the source of what
> science is now discovering.
RiiIIiiIIiiight !
Too bad that ANY God would have those attributes. Why, EXACTLY, are
you giving one cult's version precedence over all other equally silly
versions ?
No evidence this Magical Sky Pixie actually exists. No evidence this
Magical Sky Pixie did what you ASSERT He/She/It/They did. No evidence
this Magical Sky Pixie corresponds to ANY human interpretation or
religion. No evidence this Magical Sky Pixie still exists, ever
existed, or cares.
Kermit
The evolutionary process does not imply there are no gods. (Nor does
it imply there *are any.) Many theists have contributed significantly
to evolutionary science.
> People do alot of weird things to
> cover up their deepest darkest secrets. Guilt does that to you.
If you have been raised to feel shame simply for being alive, I'm
sorry. (I was also, but I got better.) However, it is not evidence of
any gods. It *certainly does not make the evidence supporting the
evolutionary science go away.
> And it
> is my expressed opinon that that is the case with this theory. Alot of
> people share this godless agenda due to similiar sin habits and
> rebellious attitudes OR similiar egotism.
I admit my sins! I go to work, I pay my bills. I feed my cat, I
garden, I workout. Sometimes I look at pretty women on the sidewalk. I
wouldn't be able to maintain this decadent lifestyle if I were a
churchgoer.
>
> Now I'm not saying that science cannot and does not demonstrate
> evolution perse. We see evolution taking place in bacterias and
> viruses. However, since these examples fall short in revealing complex
> development in life and deal with areas addressed thousands of years
> ago (death and disease processes) as a divine decree,
Evidence?
> we cannot accept
> it as solid, telling evidence. Science needs to observe real evolution
> in relation to the theory of evolution history.
As you've been told, we have observed evolution in real time, in the
lab and in the wild. Various scientific disciplines have produced the
following classes of evidence:
Fossil evidence sorted by time, corresponding to progression of early,
simple forms to diversity of modern forms, with numerous clear
transitional series.
Fossil evidence showing progression of whole ecosystems, with various
types of fossils associated with only certain other fossils.
Fossil evidence corresponding to plate tectonics, magnetic striping,
and other geological evidence.
Nested hierarchy of morphology.
Nested hierarchy of all the genomes studied so far.
The fact that these two nested hierarchies *match* is evidence in
itself.
Vestigial organs, structures, molecules, and behaviors. (Another
nested hierarchy, actually.)
Life is unified by a sharing of fundamental polymers, nucleic acids,
protein catalysts, etc.
This is not an exhaustive list.
> Show life actually
> changing in terms of complexity, new structures or organ functions in
> advanced lifeforms. This can be done if indeed evolution theory is
> correct. It has failed thus far in many species including pidgeons,
> moths, flies to name a few
What, while you sit there watching and drinking a cup of coffee? Are
you an idiot, or do you take us for idiots?
[...]
Ah, you must be posting for the congregation - you take *them to be
idiots. Well, I'll explain the obvious to them: building new, complex
structures (such as wings from forearms) takes time, like millions or
tens of millions of years. This is why we like to study little
critters - their shorter generation time and large population size
allows us to watch major changes in a reasonable span. If you wanted
to breed true flying mammals from, say, flying squirrels, it might
take a million generations - a million years. Luckily, we have plenty
of forensic evidence from multiple fields that present the same clear
picture. It's pretty unambiguous at this point. If there *is a creator
god, she made us using evolution. That or the evidence is all a joke,
and God is a trickster god, in which case *no evidence or mystic
vision could be trusted.
>
> Design is addressed in the article. Call it self design if you will,
> but intelligence is intelligence.
Yes, I suppose intelligence *is intelligence. Could you point out
where in the article intelligence is addressed? I seem to have missed
it.
> Its the acquiring of information and
> the utilization of that information. Until they can demonstrate how an
> ability to write information, to encode information, to store
> information, to decode information, to apply information all could've
> evolved, they'll have to accept, at least until they do this,
> intelligent information was from an intelligent source, a source
> unrelated to randomness or disorder.
Do you consider the oxidation of hydrogen to be the intelligent
processing of information?
> Information, insofar as its
> usefulness for productive creation is indeed ordered for just that
> purpose. And its very difficult to accept the notion that the ability
> to write this useful information could've have been established from
> random chemical reactions.
Perhaps you missed the last quoted paragraph:
"The scientists do not know how the cellular machinery guiding this
process may have originated, but they emphatically said * it does not
buttress the case for intelligent design, a controversial notion that
posits the existence of a creator responsible for complexity in
nature.*"
What do you see that the scientists missed, besides your own
incredulity? Not knowing how something happened only means that we do
not know how something happened.
> With discussions now going on about quantum
> information channeling, we now know that scientists are beginning to
> acknowledge the possibility that information can be delivered through
> the sub atomic particles to the material universe.
Subatomic particles, plus energy, *are the material universe.
> This is a more
> logical understanding of the origins of life. The materialization of
> the universe and all life by design from an extrauniversal source.
Perhaps the universe came form somewhere else, but I've seen no
evidence that design was involved.
> It's not passing the buck, its not special pleading, its just where
> the scientific information seems to lead us in concluding.
Could you be more specific about which scientific information this is?
What data implies this, and how could it be falsified?
> It's also
> refreshing that the God of the Catholic church has all of the pre-
> declared attributes which qualify him as being the source of what
> science is now discovering.
This self regulation by proteins is a natural phenomena. While
complicated and perhaps unexpected, it has no metaphysical or
theological implications not already seen by a rock rolling downhill.
Kermit
Vend
Indeed:
'"The discovery answers an age-old question that has puzzled
biologists since the time of Darwin: How can organisms be so
exquisitely complex, if evolution is completely random, operating like
a 'blind watchmaker'?" said Chakrabarti, an associate research scholar
in the Department of Chemistry at Princeton. "Our new theory extends
Darwin's model, demonstrating how organisms can subtly direct aspects
of their own evolution to create order out of randomness."'
Of course evolution isn't completely random, it wasn't thought to be
completely random at Darwin times and it isn't now.
VoiceOfReason
Which scientists? In what way are they "abusing their fields?"
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Gerard
<markge...@aol.com>:
Really? Let's find out if you're competent to make that
statement...
What field of science are you trained in, where did you get
your training (and what level did you achieve) and how long
have you worked in that field?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Gerard
Prof weird said
"If something as complex as life MUST have been designed, then WHO
DESIGNED THE DESIGNER OF LIFE ?
Oh, right - standard evasion of special bleating : 'but, but - ALL
complex things MUST be designed !!1!1 EXCEPT my Intelligent Designer
(who is far more complex than everything else in the universe but
does NOT require a designer !!!!"
Because this is design being channeled from one plane to another
plane. There's no parallel, such as we can deduce that a computer had
a physical programmer. The laws on this plane are of a cause and
effect nature, and both can be seen. But in the other plane, the
source of all natural laws wouldn't be confined to these demonstable
realities. God just is, and anything God can create, including what
that created can fathom, would be tailored for the program intended.
This particular creation program was tailored to allow us to recognize
divine moral essence, which works for the eternal order of things.
Granted, in our fallen state, God enables us to read direction signs,
such as disntinctiveness in the design which reflects his essence of
good order and beauty. This would work as an inclinator. But more
strong evidence of his presence governing creation is known in areas
other than science. Our spiritual intuition, our recognition of the
perfect moral order alone is powerful enough to convict us if we don't
follow that order. But to have both, to have physical examples of
design and the governing instinct of God, our spiritual concious and
the divine moral law, AND the spoken word of that creator (I think I
pulled a Joe Biden here :/), his will, his entire plan of salvation
layed out and even distributed over hundreds of generations and guided
by a church is icing on the cake!! We have all kinds of evidence
showing us God but we want him demonstrated. That's hypocritical! An
omnipotent God creates a little world of little people with bits of
info to guide it along, and these little people with puny little minds
demands all of the answers. If God gave us all of the detailed
information, we'd be unable to merit an authentic spiritual essence of
our own. This is all so perfect and clear to see. This creation was
tailored for that cause, a spiritual cause. And only relevant
information, information which works to declare that external force
and its will for this created plane matters. I'm sure that when we
enter that realm, we won't be able to ask "where did you come from" or
"who designed you". Those questions are confined to the logic of this
created plane and would serve no meaning in the other plane or realm.
We don't know the full essence of God, absent the moral attributes
given to us. So there may be a whole different set of qualities to
God, or laws regarding the creator which would negate applicablility
of such questions. But insofar as the world around us, we can plainly
see there was a designor and that the information is a constant, and
is also constantly being channeled into this plane. That's the
reality.
Yet, the final and great command Christ gave us was to "Love". He even
said this fulfilled all of the laws of the bible. Which it does.
Perfect love, the Catholic church's ultimate doctrine, has always been
demanded by God. So simple, yet look how complicated things appear
when we decide not to obey the church and God.
Gerard
"What field of science are you trained in, where did you get
your training (and what level did you achieve) and how long
have you worked in that field?"
That's not a pertinent question. It would have value if indeed I
stated that every scientist was corrupt. There are many many worthy
scientists who know their limitations, their parameters of study. But
there are many others who cross those parameters to serve a dishonest
agenda. That's those who concocted the thousands of distortions in the
evidence. And it is those to whom I am addressing. The ones who
attribute life's development to something undemonstrable, when in
fact, they are scientists and must demonstate. They state that random
mutations are a mechanism behind evolution but cannot in any way
demonstrate that mutations are indeed "random" and not ordered. They
say that natural selection plays a role in evolution when in fact it
reveals information attributable to a planned diversity of life as
well as information that ecology would demand there to be for us to
exist in the first place, ability to survive. They use genetic drift
as evidence for a nature only scenario when in fact genetic drift
works very well in reshuffling traits to bring about diversity of
minor characteristics. Although for the latter, it also allows
heriditary diseases as well, but that can be theologically explained
quite well. You see, they make bold claims but there are equal
scientific truths in areas of creation which can be attained with the
same examples. So by limiting their one-sided and even unscientific
opinions using science, they discredit themselves. They are psuedo
scientists and should be stripped of their jobs. In fact, they should
be spanked on the rear very hard!
Gregory A Greenman
> On Nov 20, 9:41=A0pm, Gerard <markgerard...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 20, 4:49=A0pm, VoiceOfReason <papa_fo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Gerard wrote:
> > > > Evolution exposed. Science be damned. ...
> >
> > > I take it you'll stop using your computer now?
> >
> > Let's not panic now. I'm merely saying that scientists are abusing
> > their fields.
>
> Which scientists?
Any scientist that finds evidence that contradicts the bible.
Galileo, for example.
> In what way are they "abusing their fields?"
By finding evidence that contradicts the bible. Duh.
--
Greg
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
newsguy -at- spencersoft -dot- com
richardal...@googlemail.com
> Bob said:
>
> "What field of science are you trained in, where did you get
> your training (and what level did you achieve) and how long
> have you worked in that field?"
>
> That's not a pertinent question.
It is if you are claiming knowledge of how scientists have "abused
their fields".
> It would have value if indeed I
> stated that every scientist was corrupt. There are many many worthy
> scientists who know their limitations, their parameters of study. But
> there are many others who cross those parameters to serve a dishonest
> agenda. That's those who concocted the thousands of distortions in the
> evidence. And it is those to whom I am addressing. The ones who
> attribute life's development to something undemonstrable,
And which scientists are those? Scientists form hypotheses from the
evidence which they test by the acquisition of more evidence.
> when in
> fact, they are scientists and must demonstate.
And which scientists have made unsubstantiated assertions with no
basis in evidence?
> They state that random
> mutations are a mechanism behind evolution
No, they don't. They say that the mechanism of evolution is variation
caused by random mutation acted on by natural selection.
> but cannot in any way
> demonstrate that mutations are indeed "random" and not ordered.
There is a huge body of scientific evidence that mutations *are*
random in respect of selection, and no evidence whatsoever that they
are "ordered"!
> They
> say that natural selection plays a role in evolution when in fact it
> reveals information attributable to a planned diversity of life as
> well as information that ecology would demand there to be for us to
> exist in the first place, ability to survive.
There is no evidence whatsoever for any planning in the diversity of
life!
You have complained that scientists are unable to demonstrate that
mutations are random when there is a huge body of evidence that they
*are*, and now you are making an assertion which you *cannot*
demonstrate to be true!
> They use genetic drift
> as evidence for a nature only scenario when in fact genetic drift
> works very well in reshuffling traits to bring about diversity of
> minor characteristics.
It can also lead to the evolution of new species. There is a
considerable body of scientific literature on the subject.
> Although for the latter, it also allows
> heriditary diseases as well, but that can be theologically explained
> quite well.
...and how do you propose to test your theological explanations using
the tools of science?
>You see, they make bold claims but there are equal
> scientific truths in areas of creation which can be attained with the
> same examples.
You have not identified *any* claims made by scientists which are
*not* supported by evidence, and made a number of claims yourself
which are unsupported assertions.
> So by limiting their one-sided and even unscientific
> opinions using science, they discredit themselves.
You have not identified any claims made by scientists which are not
supported by evidence.
> They are psuedo
> scientists and should be stripped of their jobs. In fact, they should
> be spanked on the rear very hard!
Evidently you see physical violence as superior to evidence when it
comes to this "debate".
RF
Chris Krolczyk
Nah, it's just another trollish YEC who apparently thinks the
equivalent
of "you're a poopyhead and a meanie and I hate you" is a viable form
of counterargument.
In short, another idiot.
-Chris
Chris Krolczyk
(snip)
Yow.
I'm beginning to think that the more you refuse to break your
screed into digestible paragraphs the more of a kook you are.
-Chris
Bob Casanova
Let's add a bit of snipped context. You said:
" I'm merely saying that scientists are abusing their
fields."
>Bob said:
>
>"What field of science are you trained in, where did you get
>your training (and what level did you achieve) and how long
>have you worked in that field?"
>
>That's not a pertinent question.
Yes, I'm afraid it is. To be competent to judge whether
"scientists are abusing their fields" you must be competent
in science *and* in the particular field in question; even
trained and experienced scientists aren't competent to judge
another's work in a different field, although they can judge
whether the other is following the rules of science.
> It would have value if indeed I
>stated that every scientist was corrupt.
Nope; you have it exactly backward. One need not be a
competent scientist to judge corruption, which isn't related
to a particular field but to ethics. And one needn't be a
scientist to understand ethics.
> There are many many worthy
>scientists who know their limitations, their parameters of study.
Without competence in the field in question you have no way
to judge this, since you know neither the limitations nor
the parameters.
> But
>there are many others who cross those parameters to serve a dishonest
>agenda. That's those who concocted the thousands of distortions in the
>evidence. And it is those to whom I am addressing. The ones who
>attribute life's development to something undemonstrable, when in
>fact, they are scientists and must demonstate.
They have done so. The fact that you fail to recognize the
demonstration speaks to your lack of competence in the field
in question. Do you consider yourself capable of determining
whether an electrical engineer has used valid design
techniques in your flat-screen TV, or whether a surgeon has
used the best medical techniques while doing the bowel
resection required by so much sitting in front of that TV
and eating multiple bags of greasy potato chips? No? Then
why do you consider yourself competent to judge whether a
scientist has properly demonstrated support for a
hypothesis, when you understand neither the hypothesis nor
the process used to test it? Everything isn't lab
experiments with flashing lights and frizzy-haired,
wild-eyed individuals screaming "Eureka!"
> They state that random
>mutations are a mechanism behind evolution but cannot in any way
>demonstrate that mutations are indeed "random" and not ordered.
Perhaps you'd care to define "random" and show why the
observed mutations don't qualify? Those who've analyzed the
data have done so, and have come to the conclusion you
question.
<snip the rest; no profit in further comment>
Louann Miller
4e86-ae14-c...@j38g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
> I'm beginning to think that the more you refuse to break your
> screed into digestible paragraphs the more of a kook you are.
It's not as powerful a warning sign as multiple exclamation points or
BREAKING INTO ALL CAPS, but it does hint at which way the wind is blowing.
wf3h
> >
> Because this is design being channeled from one plane to another
> plane.
TWA to delta? southwest to american?
oh. you don't know what the hell you're talking about....
There's no parallel, such as we can deduce that a computer had
> a physical programmer. The laws on this plane are of a cause and
> effect nature, and both can be seen. But in the other plane, the
> source of all natural laws wouldn't be confined to these demonstable
> realities. God just is
and in another plane mebbe he isn't.
(horsecrap clipped)
>
> Yet, the final and great command Christ gave us was to "Love". He even
> said this fulfilled all of the laws of the bible. Which it does.
> Perfect love, the Catholic church's ultimate doctrine, has always been
> demanded by God. So simple, yet look how complicated things appear
> when we decide not to obey the church and God.
if the catholic church believed in love they wouldn't be hell bent on
persecution of gays. the leadership of that sorry church, like so many
other churches, is fomenting hatred and evil...practices they are well
versed in.
Gerard
<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
"You have not identified *any* claims made by scientists which are
*not* supported by evidence, and made a number of claims yourself
which are unsupported assertions."
How does science prove a mutation is random as apposed to ordered?
How can science proclaim convergent evolution of aerodynamic seeds in
four different tree species as anything other than ordered?
How can it have been random mutations which enabled the development of
mimmickry species when feedback was required?
How can random genetic replication errors and their resultant
successful inherited traits in natural selection both be accredited as
the ultimate cause of complexly developed structure tailored to deal
with the external environments (eyes, wings, identicality etc.)?
These are just a few areas science cannot demonstrate yet they declare
these as facts supportive of evolution. Although I'm not exact on
specifics, I'm in the ballpark and you should understand my point.
They use unsubstantiated claims as fact for one reason. Their agenda
or their livelihood depends on it. Either they need a godless scenario
to substantiate their rogue lifestyles, or they simply need
governmental funding for their particular fields in science. In many
cases, both.
wf3h
> On Nov 22, 3:56 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>
> They use unsubstantiated claims as fact for one reason. Their agenda
> or their livelihood depends on it. Either they need a godless scenario
> to substantiate their rogue lifestyles, or they simply need
> governmental funding for their particular fields in science. In many
> cases, both.
what gerard fails to notice...is that evolution uses the same
methodology as other sciences. his paranoid hatred of science distorts
his perception of the fact that all sciences have their 'random'
actions. all sciences are 'godless'.
creationism is dead. for 2000 years it explained nothing. absolutely
nothing. it's the most used failed idea in history.
as to money, there's FAR more money in religion than in science.
creationism sells.
wf3h
> Bob said:
>
> "What field of science are you trained in, where did you get
> your training (and what level did you achieve) and how long
> have you worked in that field?"
>
> That's not a pertinent question. It would have value if indeed I
> stated that every scientist was corrupt. There are many many worthy
> scientists who know their limitations, their parameters of study. But
> there are many others who cross those parameters to serve a dishonest
> agenda. That's those who concocted the thousands of distortions in the
> evidence. And it is those to whom I am addressing. The ones who
> attribute life's development to something undemonstrable, when in
> fact, they are scientists and must demonstate.
why is evolution undemonstrable? it's done every day in labs across
the world
what IS false is the 'god did it' idea. for 2000 years the 'god did
it' crowd applied this idea to EVERYTHING. and it ALWAYS failed. it's
the most used failed idea in history
They state that random
> mutations are a mechanism behind evolution but cannot in any way
> demonstrate that mutations are indeed "random" and not ordered. They
> say that natural selection plays a role in evolution when in fact it
> reveals information attributable to a planned diversity of life as
> well as information that ecology would demand there to be for us to
> exist in the first place, ability to survive.
planned? you got proof of that? any data?
oh. you read it in a church bulletin.
They use genetic drift
> as evidence for a nature only scenario when in fact genetic drift
> works very well in reshuffling traits to bring about diversity of
> minor characteristics. Although for the latter, it also allows
> heriditary diseases as well, but that can be theologically explained
> quite well. You see, they make bold claims but there are equal
> scientific truths in areas of creation which can be attained with the
> same examples. So by limiting their one-sided and even unscientific
> opinions using science, they discredit themselves. They are psuedo
> scientists and should be stripped of their jobs. In fact, they should
> be spanked on the rear very hard!
wow! i volunteer for the first spanking. just make sure the spanker is
wearing leather and knee high boots.
wf3h
>
> Nah, it's just another trollish YEC who apparently thinks the
> equivalent
> of "you're a poopyhead and a meanie and I hate you" is a viable form
> of counterargument.
>
but i LIKE his idea of spanking! whips, chains...who knew the
creationists had such ideas...
johnetho...@yahoo.com
Brice Wellington used to claim that one of the main reasons the world
was going to hell was that men didn't spank their wives enough.
Stuart
> On Nov 22, 3:56 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> "You have not identified *any* claims made by scientists which are
> *not* supported by evidence, and made a number of claims yourself
> which are unsupported assertions."
>
> How does science prove a mutation is random as apposed to ordered?
Ordered by what?
We understand the mechanisms of mutation, through experimentation and
observation. There is nothing to suggest they are ordered by anything.
Your question is specious. I can't prove the Earth isn't being ordered
to go around the Sun either. Gravity seems to work well enough; but I
can't prove that Gravity isn't being ordered either. On the other
hand, there is no *evidence* to support the earth is being *ordered*
around in its orbit.
None the less, I appreciate the trip back down memory lane to the
Bronze age where mindsets like your were prevalent.
<rest of gibberish snipped>
Stuart
Stuart
And after that, you must engage in the oral sex ;-)
Stuart
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Nov 22, 3:56 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> "You have not identified *any* claims made by scientists which are
> *not* supported by evidence, and made a number of claims yourself
> which are unsupported assertions."
>
> How does science prove a mutation is random as apposed to ordered?
By studying the incidence of mutation in populations of organisms.
How else do you suppose they can form such a conclusion?
There have been numerous studies demonstrating this.
Would you like me to post a few references?
> How can science proclaim convergent evolution of aerodynamic seeds in
> four different tree species as anything other than ordered?
The medium in which an object moves constrains its shape if it is to
move efficiently. We know that natural selection acting on variation
caused by mutation is a very good way of refining shapes to make them
more efficient. There is a whole branch of engineering which uses the
same process to refine shape.
> How can it have been random mutations which enabled the development of
> mimmickry species when feedback was required?
The feedback comes from the environment. Organisms which are closer in
appearance to the species they mimic are less likely to be predated
and therefore more likely to produce offspring.
This is pretty elementary stuff. Would you like me to recommend some
reading material so that you can educate yourself in basic
evolutionary biology? It would seem rather premature to go straight to
the scientific papers - of which there are many - which describe such
processes in detail.
> How can random genetic replication errors and their resultant
> successful inherited traits in natural selection both be accredited as
> the ultimate cause of complexly developed structure tailored to deal
> with the external environments (eyes, wings, identicality etc.)?
Because there is evidence that they do, and no evidence to support any
other scientific model.
> These are just a few areas science cannot demonstrate yet they declare
> these as facts supportive of evolution.
Actually, science *can* demonstrate all the cases you've listed.
If you want to learn how, I'd be happy to post a list of
recommendations for sources from which you can educate yourself in the
subject.
If you don't want to learn, it tells us more about the strength of
your argument than it does about the validity of the science.
> Although I'm not exact on
> specifics, I'm in the ballpark and you should understand my point.
All you have demonstrated is that you don't know anything about
evolutionary theory.
>
> They use unsubstantiated claims as fact for one reason.
You have not provided a single instance of an unsubstantiated claim,
which makes this:
> Their agenda
> or their livelihood depends on it.
..an unsubstantiated claim.
> Either they need a godless scenario
> to substantiate their rogue lifestyles,
...and this...
> or they simply need
> governmental funding for their particular fields in science.
...and this...
> In many
> cases, both.
By the way, I'm a vertebrate palaeontologist.
I don't get *any* "governmental funding" for my research, and I make
my living by writing code for web sites. As I make it a point *never*
to discuss my religious beliefs on this or any other forum, and there
are plenty of evolutionary biologists who hold strong religious
beliefs, you have no basis whatsoever to accuse me of having a "rogue
lifestyle" or a "godless scenario".
RF
R. Baldwin
news:cd3f036e-c284-4c47...@q9g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
> Evolution exposed. Science be damned. In the recent Princeton
> University article, evolutionists showed their true colors and their
> foolishness. The article I am referring to is located at
> http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/60/95O56/index.xml?
secti
> on=topstories, and this gives us a great example of why science, at
> least in terms of discerning the origins of life, is completely flawed
> and contradictary. Especially in arguing against Intelligent Design
> theory.
>
> From the article: "The authors sought to identify the underlying
> cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein
> chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues. Applying the
> concepts of control theory, a body of knowledge that deals with the
> behavior of dynamical systems, the researchers concluded that this
> self-correcting behavior could only be possible if, during the early
> stages of evolution, the proteins had developed a self-regulating
> mechanism, analogous to a car's cruise control or a home's thermostat,
> allowing them to fine-tune and control their subsequent evolution. The
> scientists are working on formulating a new general theory based on
> this finding they are calling "evolutionary control."
>
>
> Here you have it layed out right in plain sight. Another example of
> science damning itself to future rejection by what is hopefully a more
> saner, honest and intelligent society. Scientists, convinced, absent
> any evidence that evolution is true and Intelligent Design is wrong,
> observe and study in that mindset. In this article, they are actually
> contradicting themselves by admitting that an intelligent, dynamic and
> complex mechanism guided or controlled, yes, even designed
> evolutionary success. In denying intelligent design they pointed out
> intelligent design.
>
> They are damning themselves.
> ;-)
>
If you would have bothered to find out what Control Theory is about, you
would know that no intelligence is required It is simply a theory about
how dynamic systems work. Even though it was developed for mechanisms
and circuits, it can be used equally well in economics, population
dynamics, social systems, planetary systems, and just about anything
involving feedback.
Applying Control Theory to a genome in no way implies there was any
intelligence involved. It only implies that feedback was involved, which
was never in doubt. It was a perfectly reasonable tool to use under the
circumstances.
R. Baldwin
news:f3cdec98-476b-4bb2...@f3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 20, 3:01 pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
>> On Nov 20, 3:01 am, Gerard <markgerard...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Evolution exposed. Science be damned. In the recent Princeton
>> > University article, evolutionists showed their true colors and
>> > their foolishness. The article I am referring to is located
>> > athttp://www.prin
> ceton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/60/95O56/index.xml?sec...,
>> > and this gives us a great example of why science, at least in terms
>> > of discerning the origins of life, is completely flawed and
>> > contradictary. Especially in arguing against Intelligent Design
>> > theory.
>>
>> > From the article: "The authors sought to identify the underlying
>> > cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein
>> > chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues. Applying the
>> > concepts of control theory, a body of knowledge that deals with the
>> > behavior of dynamical systems, the researchers concluded that this
>> > self-correcting behavior could only be possible if, during the
>> > early stages of evolution, the proteins had developed a
>> > self-regulating mechanism, analogous to a car's cruise control or a
>> > home's thermostat, allowing them to fine-tune and control their
>> > subsequent evolution. The scientists are working on formulating a
>> > new general theory based on this finding they are calling
>> > "evolutionary control."
>>
>> And, like most blithering simpletons that read ONLY for things to
>> misrepresent or misunderstand, you stopped reading at that point,
>> since you 'thought' the PRESS RELEASE somehow supported your
>> delusions.
>>
>> Had you read farther, you'd see they but they emphatically said : "it
>> does not buttress the case for intelligent design, a controversial
>> notion that posits the existence of a creator responsible for
>> complexity in nature."
>>
>> > Here you have it layed out right in plain sight.
>>
>> Yes, the fact you are a simpleton is indeed out in plain sight.
>>
>> > Another example of
>> > science damning itself to future rejection by what is hopefully a
>> > more saner, honest and intelligent society. Scientists, convinced,
>> > absent any evidence that evolution is true and Intelligent Design
>> > is wrong, observe and study in that mindset.
>>
>> Too bad that there is evidence that evolution is right, and nothing
>> to support Magical Skymanism/'Intelligent' Design except willfull
>> stupidity, arguments from personal incredulity, arguments from
>> adverse consequences, and other known fallacies.
>>
>> And just how, EXACTLY, is blubbering 'DESIGNERDIDIT !!!1!1!1!!' of
>> any use whatsoever ?
>>
>> > In this article, they are actually
>> > contradicting themselves by admitting that an intelligent, dynamic
>> > and complex mechanism guided or controlled, yes, even designed
>> > evolutionary success. In denying intelligent design they pointed
>> > out intelligent design.
>>
>> > They are damning themselves.
>> > ;-)
>>
>> Not really, given the FACT that even YOUR OWN LINK states the
>> researchers state their work DOES NOT SUPPORT INTELLIGENT DESIGN, nor
>> actually harms evolution in any way.
>>
>> The ACTUAL article can be found here :
>>
>> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0806/0806.2331v1.pdf
>>
>> From the article : "Optimal control theory provides an explanation
>> for the observed behavior that's FULLY CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT
>> EVOLUTIONARY THEORY, based on minimal additional assumptions."
>>
>> Note : NONE of those minimal additional assumptions are 'Intelligent
>> Designers' of any sort ....
>
> You said "Too bad that there is evidence that evolution is right, and
> nothing to
> support Magical Skymanism/'Intelligent' Design except willfull
> stupidity, arguments from personal incredulity, arguments from
> adverse
> consequences, and other known fallacies."
>
> No, there's alot of misplaced, misrepresented or misinterpreted
> evidence. Why? Because they are digging hard for substantiation of a
> godless explanation for our origins. People do alot of weird things to
> cover up their deepest darkest secrets. Guilt does that to you. And it
> is my expressed opinon that that is the case with this theory. Alot of
> people share this godless agenda due to similiar sin habits and
> rebellious attitudes OR similiar egotism.
That is ridiculous. The scientists involved applied a well-known body of
knowledge about feedback loops to a particular application of feedback
loops. It would be rather astonishing if nobody ever tried it.
>
> Now I'm not saying that science cannot and does not demonstrate
> evolution perse. We see evolution taking place in bacterias and
> viruses. However, since these examples fall short in revealing complex
> development in life and deal with areas addressed thousands of years
> ago (death and disease processes) as a divine decree, we cannot accept
> it as solid, telling evidence. Science needs to observe real evolution
> in relation to the theory of evolution history. Show life actually
> changing in terms of complexity, new structures or organ functions in
> advanced lifeforms. This can be done if indeed evolution theory is
> correct. It has failed thus far in many species including pidgeons,
> moths, flies to name a few.
No, it hasn't failed.
>
> Design is addressed in the article.
No, design is not addressed in the article, except one sentence in which
the scientists "emphatically said it does not buttress the case for
intelligent design." It is quite clear that you don't understand what
Control Theory is, and hence, you did not understand the article.
> Call it self design if you will, but intelligence is intelligence. Its
> the acquiring of information and the utilization of that information.
I've never seen intelligence defined that way. Using this definition,
plants are intelligent.
> Until they can demonstrate how an
> ability to write information, to encode information, to store
> information, to decode information, to apply information all could've
> evolved, they'll have to accept, at least until they do this,
> intelligent information was from an intelligent source, a source
> unrelated to randomness or disorder.
Why should this be accepted?
> Information, insofar as its
> usefulness for productive creation is indeed ordered for just that
> purpose.
What is your evidence for this?
> And its very difficult to accept the notion that the ability
> to write this useful information could've have been established from
> random chemical reactions.
So you, personally, are incredulous. What difference does that make?
> With discussions now going on about quantum
> information channeling, we now know that scientists are beginning to
> acknowledge the possibility that information can be delivered through
> the sub atomic particles to the material universe.
Sigh. Subatomic particles ARE part of the material universe. So is the
information within them, whether artificial or natural. But I suspect
the word "information" is also one where you don't quite understand the
scientific meaning.
> This is a more
> logical understanding of the origins of life.
How is this incoherent nonsense in any way logical?
> The materialization of
> the universe and all life by design from an extrauniversal source.
> It's not passing the buck, its not special pleading, its just where
> the scientific information seems to lead us in concluding.
Not really, no.
> It's also
> refreshing that the God of the Catholic church has all of the pre-
> declared attributes which qualify him as being the source of what
> science is now discovering.
>
The trouble is. every other God also has those pre-declared attributes.
There isn't any way for Science to tell whether your God, or any
particular God, had any involvement in natural phenomena, or not. We
must accept or reject God on faith alone. Science has nothing to say
about it.
Gerard
<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
"If you want to learn how, I'd be happy to post a list of
recommendations for sources from which you can educate yourself in
the
subject.
If you don't want to learn, it tells us more about the strength of
your argument than it does about the validity of the science."
No, thanks anyway. I wouldn't have bothered addressing this subject if
I hadn't already educated myself on precisely what scientists are
teaching. I'll admit though, its refreshing to see an "unbiased"
scientist, as you claim to be.
You know there's no definite information which supports the claims of
evolution otherwise you'd post it here yourself. Instead, you offer
links to the jibber jabber sites which do not know how to interpret
the findings, other than in how it "might" vaguely explain an aspect
of evolution they're deadset on finding. Kind of like "this will do
for now, lets use it".
What I also find criminal is the fact that many creative
evolutionsists, who claim to believe God guided evolution, accept the
"randomness" attributed to it, especially in areas of mutations and
genetic drift. Either it was ordered or it wasn't. There's no god
behind this if indeed randomness is a part of the process.
Kent Paul Dolan
> "Chakrabarti and Rabitz analyzed these
> observations of the proteins' behavior from a
> mathematical standpoint, concluding that it would
> be statistically impossible for this
> self-correcting behavior to be random, and
> demonstrating that the observed result is
> precisely that predicted by the equations of
> control theory. By operating only at extremes,
> referred to in control theory as "bang-bang
> extremization," the proteins were exhibiting
> behavior *consistent with a system managing itself
> optimally under evolution.*
In simpler language, it has all the "intelligent
design" of a single pole single throw switch: it
operates only at the extreme positions of "off" or
"on", but uses feedback to control the timing of
that behavior.
I've seen seagulls do something at this level of
intelligence, changing the state of a clam from
"shut" to "open", by "dropping it on a rock" and
using feedback to try dropping it again if that
doesn't work the first time.
If the "god of the gaps" only has to be as smart as
an average seagull, I'm pretty sure the theory of
evolution is in no danger at all.
xanthian.
Gerard
wrote:
in reply to "It's also refreshing that the God of the Catholic church
has all of the pre- declared attributes which qualify him as being the
source of what science is now discovering:
"The trouble is. every other God .."
Brahmanism and its Hindu/Buddhist spinoffs, present a universal God
which is unable to create the universe. Islam contradicts divine
order. Other than those 3, there's only 2 others worth noting in human
history. Judaism and Catholicism. Judaism presents the very same God,
but Catholicism presents his entire work and revelation to mankind. So
no, there's only one God. The qualities attributed to Jesus qualify
him as the only entity capable of creating this universe. His
transcendent powers revealed in his miracles as well as his time
transcendent examples. Even if spoken by Christ alone "before abraham
was, I Am", "restore unto me the glory I had before the foundations of
the world" etc., at least this capability was addressed and it is this
timeless essence which qualifies him as one outside of time. Time and
material transcendency are only declared to the bible God. Throw in
the scientific knowledge (before science discovered or proved them,
such as the hydrologic cycle in Isaiah, our preknown form in the dust
of the ground, the circle of the earth, the flames of the stars etc.).
And add finally, the divine moral order, that which works for the
common good of each and every human being, born or unborn and you
have a true qualified creator and God. Jesus. Add to that that somehow
the vast majority of the world turns the calendar on his incarnate-
birthday each year and you have a solid case for both creator and his
redemption/cultivation plan for mankind. This is a slam dunk! ;-)
RAM
No you got blocked by your own incompetence due to religious
dogmatism:
Please provide empirical evidence for the following:
"People do alot of weird things to
cover up their deepest darkest secrets. [possibly your hate for
evolutionary science?] Guilt does that to you. And it
is my expressed opinon that that is the case with this theory. [given
your ignorance of science why should one care?] A lot of
people share this godless agenda due to similiar sin habits and
rebellious attitudes OR similiar egotism.[malarkey, bloviation,
projection?]"
If you can not then why should any one consider your religious agenda
against science worthy of anything but disdain?
RAM
Stuart
> On Nov 23, 5:07 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> "If you want to learn how, I'd be happy to post a list of
> recommendations for sources from which you can educate yourself in
> the
> subject.
> If you don't want to learn, it tells us more about the strength of
> your argument than it does about the validity of the science."
>
> No, thanks anyway. I wouldn't have bothered addressing this subject if
> I hadn't already educated myself on precisely what scientists are
> teaching. I'll admit though, its refreshing to see an "unbiased"
> scientist, as you claim to be.
>
> You know there's no definite information which supports the claims of
> evolution otherwise you'd post it here yourself.
Thats silly.
Go to www.talkorigins.org
Stuart
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Nov 23, 5:07 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> "If you want to learn how, I'd be happy to post a list of
> recommendations for sources from which you can educate yourself in
> the
> subject.
> If you don't want to learn, it tells us more about the strength of
> your argument than it does about the validity of the science."
>
> No, thanks anyway. I wouldn't have bothered addressing this subject if
> I hadn't already educated myself on precisely what scientists are
> teaching.
It's perfectly clear that you *don't* know much about evolutionary
theory. You make elementary mistakes in every post which demonstrate
that.
> I'll admit though, its refreshing to see an "unbiased"
> scientist, as you claim to be.
>
> You know there's no definite information which supports the claims of
> evolution otherwise you'd post it here yourself.
What I know is that there is a vast amount of evidence which supports
evolutionary theory but, as you have just demonstrated, creationists
have no interest whatsoever in learning anything about it. I've
offered to post a list of recommendations for reading matter - which
incidentally is not just a list of web sites -which will give you a
good enough education in the basics of evolutionary theory to make
some sense of the very large number of scientific papers which have
been published.
, you offer
> links to the jibber jabber sites which do not know how to interpret
> the findings, other than in how it "might" vaguely explain an aspect
> of evolution they're deadset on finding. Kind of like "this will do
> for now, lets use it".
So, rather than take up my offer of help in educating yourself, you
are making up a position I don't hold, and presenting conclusions
with no basis in evidence.
What do you think this tells us about the intellectual and moral basis
of your position?
>
> What I also find criminal is the fact that many creative
> evolutionsists, who claim to believe God guided evolution, accept the
> "randomness" attributed to it, especially in areas of mutations and
> genetic drift.
If you think that it is not random, I suggest that you address the
evidence and argument presented in the numerous scientific papers
which form the conclusion that mutations *are* random in respect of
fitness. It is not "criminal" to report honestly on the findings of
science.
> Either it was ordered or it wasn't.
The evidence shows that mutation is random in respect of fitness. If
you take the time to learn something about the incidence of mutation
you will find that this is the case. If you refuse to learn because
your convictions can only be maintained through ignorance it tells us
more about the value of your convictions than it does about the
incidence of mutation.
> There's no god
> behind this if indeed randomness is a part of the process.
That argument pretty well rules out the existence of god. The movement
of molecules in a gas is random. The decay of a radioactive particle
is random. Quantum fluctuations are random. You won't be able to
present any argument if you do not learn something about the nature of
science.
Your choice.
RF
(M)-adman
>> On Nov 22, 7:00 pm, Gerard <markgerard...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 22, 3:56 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>>>
>>> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "You have not identified *any* claims made by scientists which are
>>> *not* supported by evidence, and made a number of claims yourself
>>> which are unsupported assertions."
>>>
>>> How does science prove a mutation is random as apposed to ordered?
>>
>> Ordered by what?
Everything has been ordered, provisioned for, and setforth as it was created.
By God.
>>
>> <rest of gibberish snipped>
--
It is all about the truth with:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
(M)-adman
> It is not "criminal" to report honestly on the findings of
> science.
Evolution is not honest science.
Ye Old One
Liar!
I know you are a very forgetful person, or at least you like to run
away and try to forget things. However, on the 29th September 2008 you
failed to deal with a number of items that were first listed by
Boikat.
So, to help you, here (again) are the mistakes Boikat (and now myself)
think you need to address:-
Claiming the actor Paul Newman was a creationist....
Claiming that "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific*
discoveries...
Claiming wars have been fought because some scientific finding
discredited some facet of some religion...
Claiming to have a "higher education" than most posters to this news
group....
Claiming to understand how geologists determine the age of any given
sample of rock...
Now, will you deal with them? Or do I need to keep reminding you?
--
Bob.
Mark Isaak
The word for what Gerard is promoting is "bigotry". His religion is a
hate group.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Mark Isaak
> What I also find criminal is the fact that many creative
> evolutionsists, who claim to believe God guided evolution, accept the
> "randomness" attributed to it, especially in areas of mutations and
> genetic drift. Either it was ordered or it wasn't. There's no god
> behind this if indeed randomness is a part of the process.
So you reject the Bible, too. After all, it can't be a real God which
commands Aaron to draw lots for a sacrifice (Lev. 16:8), and when Joshua
cast lots, it could not really have been in the presence of the Lord
(Joshua 18:6-8). To give just two examples.
Stuart
> Stuart wrote:
> >> On Nov 22, 7:00 pm, Gerard <markgerard...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> On Nov 22, 3:56 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>
> >>> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> "You have not identified *any* claims made by scientists which are
> >>> *not* supported by evidence, and made a number of claims yourself
> >>> which are unsupported assertions."
>
> >>> How does science prove a mutation is random as apposed to ordered?
>
> >> Ordered by what?
>
> Everything has been ordered, provisioned for, and setforth as it was created.
>
> By God.
>
Got any evidence of that?
Didn't think so.
Give it up assman, you have nothing to offer.
Stuart
richardal...@googlemail.com
So perhaps you can identify *any* publication by *any* evolutionary
biologist which contains statements known to be false with the intent
to deceive?
I'll post a list of such instances from creationist web sites. I'm not
talking about differences of interpretation of evidence, or simply
passing on falsehoods from other creationist sources, but of
deliberate lies.
The fact is that you and other creationists are very free to accuse
"evolutionists" of lying, yet are unable to produce any evidence to
support your assertions. This is what the bible calls "bearing false
witness". Evidently this is a part of the bible creationists such as
you think does not apply to themselves.
I and many others have identified numerous instances of creationists
lying. No creationist has shown much interest in addressing the
evidence that creationists lie to support their cause.
So not only do you bear false witness against others, you condone the
bearing of false witness by other creationists.
Coming from those claiming the moral high ground this is utter
hypocrisy.
As I have explained many times, this issue is not about science or
religion. It's about honesty. I despise creationism is deeply and
systematically dishonest.
RF
Dan Drake
<johnetho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 22, 9:11ÿpm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 22, 3:25ÿpm, Chris Krolczyk <chriskrolc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Nah, it's just another trollish YEC who apparently thinks the
> > > equivalent
> > > of "you're a poopyhead and a meanie and I hate you" is a viable form
> > > of counterargument.
> >
> > but i LIKE his idea of spanking! ÿwhips, chains...who knew the
> > creationists had such ideas...
>
> Brice Wellington used to claim that one of the main reasons the world
> was going to hell was that men didn't spank their wives enough.
>
A dog, a wife, and a walnut tree,
The more you beat them, the better they be.
--English proverb cited by Bergen Evans
--
Dan Drake
d...@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com/
porlockjr.blogspot.com
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>:
How would you know? You're a scientific illiterate.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Gerard
<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
"That argument pretty well rules out the existence of god. The
movement
of molecules in a gas is random. The decay of a radioactive particle
is random. Quantum fluctuations are random. You won't be able to
present any argument if you do not learn something about the nature
of
science."
You are taking my words out of context. I said I cannot see how anyone
can be a creationist while accepting the unproven falsity of
"randomness" associated with the development of and sustaining of
life. God would not have created chaos, which random is. Its a
disorderly state resulting in random cause and effect results. Now a
big bang resultant from another dimension is a possibility, but not
from a God.
Randomness is assumed because the electromagnetic forces which move
the tinest particles, gravitational forces which move the chemicals or
the dna replication processes or cis regulatory processes dealing with
mutations are ALL unknown. Something may seem random or chaotic but it
all may very well be a harmonic synchronicity echoed by command from
the sub-atomic realm, a realm invisible to us. Like I said before,
there's enough order and direction to see Gods hand in everything, but
then there's the hidden-ness we can't see which will force us to use
an inclination, another criteria of an "invisible" essence, our
spiritual concious. Logic and intelligence allows us to see Gods hand
in creation, but if we rely too much on just the sole criteria of
science, we will eventually have to conclude errors like "chaos" or
"random" because we aren't smart enough to know better intellectually.
So its unbelief which leads to the eventual conclusion of randomness,
kind of circular mentality. "I don't believe and I'll show you why",
and then you go ahead and explain all of the order away using
something you can't decipher like electromagnetic charges, chemical
reactions or mutations.
Nice try.
Stuart
> On Nov 24, 3:40 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> "That argument pretty well rules out the existence of god. The
> movement
> of molecules in a gas is random. The decay of a radioactive particle
> is random. Quantum fluctuations are random. You won't be able to
> present any argument if you do not learn something about the nature
> of
> science."
>
> You are taking my words out of context. I said I cannot see how anyone
> can be a creationist while accepting the unproven falsity of
> "randomness" associated with the development of and sustaining of
> life. God would not have created chaos, which random is. Its a
> disorderly state resulting in random cause and effect results. Now a
> big bang resultant from another dimension is a possibility, but not
> from a God.
>
> Randomness is assumed because the electromagnetic forces which move
> the tinest particles, gravitational forces which move the chemicals or
> the dna replication processes or cis regulatory processes dealing with
> mutations are ALL unknown.
<gibberish snipped>
Quantum vacuum fluctuations are random and uncaused.
You are talking without knowing. That we perceived quantum randomness
because we were ignorant about deeper laws was suggested by Einstein
and the basis of hidden variable theories. These have since been
falsified.
Sorry.
Stuart
Gerard
"So you reject the Bible, too. After all, it can't be a real God
which
commands Aaron to draw lots for a sacrifice (Lev. 16:8), and when
Joshua
cast lots, it could not really have been in the presence of the Lord
(Joshua 18:6-8). To give just two examples."
Aaron and Joshua's proportioning of sacrifices or lands has absolutely
nothing to do with science and the creation and sustaining of
undecillions of living cells. Give me a break!
Gerard
[gibberish included]
"Quantum vacuum fluctuations are random and uncaused." "You are
talking without knowing. That we perceived quantum randomness because
we were ignorant about deeper laws was suggested by Einstein and the
basis of hidden variable theories. These have since been falsified.
Lol, by what, Theories?
If you look in a microscope with a weak setting, you see what appears
to be chaotic movements of cells. But when you have a stronger setting
you see clearer the roles of those cells. The same is true about
everything else in this universe. There are programs being run by
trillions of role-playing particles and cells carrying out their
DESIGNnated tasks and just because we can't see it it's random? Go
figure!
:-/
wf3h
>>
> You are taking my words out of context. I said I cannot see how anyone
> can be a creationist while accepting the unproven falsity of
> "randomness" associated with the development of and sustaining of
> life. God would not have created chaos, which random is. Its a
> disorderly state resulting in random cause and effect results. Now a
> big bang resultant from another dimension is a possibility, but not
> from a God.
>
except that the very basis of creationism IS randomness. creationists
reject the concept of natural processes involved in the origin of
life. by doing so, they open origins up to randomness...and destroy
their idea of god.
creationism is an oxymoron
>
> So its unbelief which leads to the eventual conclusion of randomness,
just the opposite. by saying that god is directly involved in
creationism, creationists assume that nature is governed by divine
fiat. and idea that has failed for 2000 years to explain anything
about nature at all. which is why creationism is favored by
schoolboards and politicians while being rejected by scientists
Stuart
> On Nov 24, 6:41 pm, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> [gibberish included]
>
> "Quantum vacuum fluctuations are random and uncaused." "You are
> talking without knowing. That we perceived quantum randomness because
> we were ignorant about deeper laws was suggested by Einstein and the
> basis of hidden variable theories. These have since been falsified.
>
> Lol, by what, Theories?
>
By experiments and the Bell Inequality theorem.
LOL indeed.
Stuart
heekster
wrote:
The above sentence contains three things, about which adman knows
absolutely nothing.
R. Baldwin
b84533...@z1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
I'm sorry, but you don't appear to have adequately researched these things,
R. Baldwin
5a3a91...@h5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 24, 3:40 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> "That argument pretty well rules out the existence of god. The
> movement
> of molecules in a gas is random. The decay of a radioactive particle
> is random. Quantum fluctuations are random. You won't be able to
> present any argument if you do not learn something about the nature
> of
> science."
>
> You are taking my words out of context. I said I cannot see how anyone
> can be a creationist while accepting the unproven falsity of
> "randomness" associated with the development of and sustaining of
> life. God would not have created chaos, which random is. Its a
> disorderly state resulting in random cause and effect results. Now a
> big bang resultant from another dimension is a possibility, but not
> from a God.
>
You presume to know the mind of God?
>
> Randomness is assumed because the electromagnetic forces which move
> the tinest particles, gravitational forces which move the chemicals or
> the dna replication processes or cis regulatory processes dealing with
> mutations are ALL unknown.
Electromagnetism is not a force, it is a protential energy field. It can
exert a force on a moving charged particle, but the term "electromagnetic
forces" is wrong. It is also not a random force or unknown.
Gravity is certainly not a random force, and it is not at all clear why you
believe it is of much significance with respect to chemicals.
DNA replication processes are not random and not unknown. The contributing
noise processes are random.
What particular cis-acting processes are you referring to?
> Something may seem random or chaotic but it
> all may very well be a harmonic synchronicity echoed by command from
> the sub-atomic realm, a realm invisible to us.
It might also be the work of fairies, but Science only considers natural
causes that can be subject to experiment. Anything else is outside the
realm of Science.
> Like I said before,
> there's enough order and direction to see Gods hand in everything, but
> then there's the hidden-ness we can't see which will force us to use
> an inclination, another criteria of an "invisible" essence, our
> spiritual concious. Logic and intelligence allows us to see Gods hand
> in creation, but if we rely too much on just the sole criteria of
> science, we will eventually have to conclude errors like "chaos" or
> "random" because we aren't smart enough to know better intellectually.
It is not logic that allows us to see God's hand in anything, it is faith.
What evidence makes you conclude that "chaos" and "random" are in any way
errant?
>
> So its unbelief which leads to the eventual conclusion of randomness,
> kind of circular mentality.
No, it isn't. There are several different mathematical interpretations of
randomness, each with their own applicability to legitimate scientific
problems in a variety of fields.
> "I don't believe and I'll show you why",
> and then you go ahead and explain all of the order away using
> something you can't decipher like electromagnetic charges, chemical
> reactions or mutations.
>
> Nice try.
>
>
Nice gibberish.
Gerard
"By experiments and the Bell Inequality theorem."
That deals with local or physically hidden particles and in no way
relates with what intelligent design or order would suggest. A
channeled directive, whether doppler waves or force fields, or
individually emanating particles in synchronized forms, none of which
would be observable, detectable or related with laws of
thermodynamics, and it all can just as well explain order and not
random. Now this is coming from a layman not an physicist, but you
should make sense out of it.
There are no evidences of random events in the natural world. Noone
can possibly trace the ultimate cause of any given event.
Gerard
wrote:
"Electromagnetism is not a force, it is a protential energy field. It
can
exert a force on a moving charged particle, but the term
"electromagnetic
forces" is wrong. It is also not a random force or unknown.
Gravity is certainly not a random force, and it is not at all clear
why you
believe it is of much significance with respect to chemicals.
DNA replication processes are not random and not unknown. The
contributing
noise processes are random.
What particular cis-acting processes are you referring to?"
I'm not addressing electromagnetism as random, but the random it is
attributed as causing. Its the electromagnetic force which dictates
how atoms interact. Now unless you are a design theorist I don't know
how you'd think it wasn't random. Gravity, I'm talking about force,
initially, would've been the force (such as the sun's effects on
planetary orbits, and the moon would have on tides which would mix
primordial chemicals). Dna replication processes are indeed random and
unknown isofar as the so-called "mutational" errors are concerned. Cis
regulators and how they interpret and/or regulate these random errors
of coding are indeed unknown. Never has there been a mutation observed
being utilized to be applicable in a lifeform. It's all speculative.
As is all of the randomness attributed to them.
Gerard
" intelligent design or order would suggest"
I'd like to follow up on that statement. Intelligent design theorists
seem to miss the mark, as do their counterparts, in regards to
discerning the proper criteria.
The reason is that the idea of a designer stems from more than just
the evidence, but also religious channels. It is a stretch to think
that a natural world would produce living beings which not only feared
a fundamental process and part of their being (death), but also to
seek or entertain unnatural origins. Add to that, if an intelligent
designer did induce man with spiritual insight, and even communicate a
truth, it would extend throughout human history and play a part in
their reasoning regarding evidences. Only Catholicism covers that
timeframe, and it is within this consistently held church doctrines,
that sin brought about death, disease, yes, disorder. Circumstantial
evidence which looks contradictary to what an intelligent designer
would produce. So theology and science may well be the right way to
discern evidences regarding intelligent design. Science alone may
provide alot of circumstantial evidence. Let that be noted and let
there be an asterisk in every Intelligent Design and Evolutionary
Textbook for future generations. Its only fair.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Nov 24, 3:40 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> "That argument pretty well rules out the existence of god. The
> movement
> of molecules in a gas is random. The decay of a radioactive particle
> is random. Quantum fluctuations are random. You won't be able to
> present any argument if you do not learn something about the nature
> of
> science."
>
> You are taking my words out of context.
No I'm not. You asserted that randomness excludes God.
> I said I cannot see how anyone
> can be a creationist while accepting the unproven falsity of
> "randomness" associated with the development of and sustaining of
> life.
Well bully for you. As you know nothing about the subject and refuse
to learn, why on earth do you think anyone should take your opinions
as anything other than a joke?
> God would not have created chaos, which random is.
So why not address the evidence that mutations *are* random in respect
of fitness?
Perhaps God doesn't need to do what *you* tell him he should?
> Its a
> disorderly state resulting in random cause and effect results.
Randomness - for example the movement of molecules in a gas - leads to
highly predictable results if the sample size is big enough.
> Now a
> big bang resultant from another dimension is a possibility, but not
> from a God.
>
> Randomness is assumed because the electromagnetic forces which move
> the tinest particles, gravitational forces which move the chemicals or
> the dna replication processes or cis regulatory processes dealing with
> mutations are ALL unknown.
No, it's concluded because that is what we observe.
> Something may seem random or chaotic but it
> all may very well be a harmonic synchronicity echoed by command from
> the sub-atomic realm, a realm invisible to us.
...and unless you can offer a way of testing this assertion using the
tools of science, it has no validity as science.
> Like I said before,
> there's enough order and direction to see Gods hand in everything, but
> then there's the hidden-ness we can't see which will force us to use
> an inclination, another criteria of an "invisible" essence, our
> spiritual concious.
...and unless you can offer a way of testing this assertion using the
tools of science, it has no validity as science.
> Logic and intelligence allows us to see Gods hand
> in creation, but if we rely too much on just the sole criteria of
> science, we will eventually have to conclude errors like "chaos" or
> "random" because we aren't smart enough to know better intellectually.
As we actually observe and measure the random incidence of mutation,
the random movement of molecules in a gas and the random decay of
atomic nuclei your denial carries no weight. Unless you can offer a
way of testing this assertion using the tools of science, it has no
validity as science.
>
> So its unbelief which leads to the eventual conclusion of randomness,
> kind of circular mentality.
What utter nonsense! It's observation and measurement which leads to
the conclusion of randomness.
> "I don't believe and I'll show you why",
> and then you go ahead and explain all of the order away using
> something you can't decipher like electromagnetic charges, chemical
> reactions or mutations.
More nonsense.
>
> Nice try.
So why not address the evidence?
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Nov 25, 1:27 am, Gerard <markgerard...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> " intelligent design or order would suggest"
>
> I'd like to follow up on that statement. Intelligent design theorists
> seem to miss the mark, as do their counterparts, in regards to
> discerning the proper criteria.
There are no "intelligent design theorists". That is because
"Intelligent Design" is not a theory. It's the unfounded assertion
that if there is something not explained by existing scientific
theory, the only possible alternative is to abandon any scientific
explanation in favour of the assertion that God did it. Referring to
God as an "Intelligent Designer" is nothing more than an attempt to
sneak religious conviction into science classes.
>
> The reason is that the idea of a designer stems from more than just
> the evidence, but also religious channels.
So it's not science.
Why do creationists continue to assert that it is?
> It is a stretch to think
> that a natural world would produce living beings which not only feared
> a fundamental process and part of their being (death), but also to
> seek or entertain unnatural origins.
Possibly, but it's a conclusion drawn from the evidence.
Unless you can offer a better, testable explanation for that evidence
there is no reason why that conclusion should not be accepted.
> Add to that, if an intelligent
> designer did induce man with spiritual insight, and even communicate a
> truth, it would extend throughout human history and play a part in
> their reasoning regarding evidences.
On the other hand, an "intelligent designer" might have ignored
mankind completely. The issue is not whether or not you believe in
God, but whether or not the existence of God can be tested using the
tools of science. Many scientists believe in God. That does not mean
that they consider such a belief to be testable using the tools of
science.
> Only Catholicism covers that
> timeframe, and it is within this consistently held church doctrines,
> that sin brought about death, disease, yes, disorder. Circumstantial
> evidence which looks contradictary to what an intelligent designer
> would produce.
Quite so. All this shows is that there is no way in which the tools of
science can be used to test for the existence of God.
> So theology and science may well be the right way to
> discern evidences regarding intelligent design.
So how do you propose to test theological issues using the tools of
science?
> Science alone may
> provide alot of circumstantial evidence.
How can science provide evidence for a "theory" which cannot be tested
using the tools of science?
> Let that be noted and let
> there be an asterisk in every Intelligent Design and Evolutionary
> Textbook for future generations. Its only fair.
I suggest that rather than pontificating in this way you learn
something about the nature of science. You are hopelessly confused.
RF
(M)-adman
Are you THIS stupid?
Science cannot even explain what life is much less where it came from.
(M)-adman
What is to learn? Your science is a joke.
You overlook one fact. Scientists 1000 years from now are going to be laughing their ass off at
you. They will be in disbelief that you believe what you believe in much the same way scientists
today laugh and wonder how man 1000 years ago believed what they believed.
Evolution is a lie. The only observed evolution that takes place with in the kind. Exactly as
the bible says. "each after his kind". The bible also says "be fruitful and multiply". This is
fully understood by science when a wolf gives rise to many different kinds of dogs. The wolf did
not Divide into a different species, it Multiplied into dogs because the wolf and the dog are
genetically the same kind.
--
Edcuating you on difference between division and multiplication with:
wf3h
>
> What is to learn? Your science is a joke.
>
> You overlook one fact. Scientists 1000 years from now are going to be laughing their ass off at
> you. They will be in disbelief that you believe what you believe in much the same way scientists
> today laugh and wonder how man 1000 years ago believed what they believed.
wrong. we don't laugh at newton, nor kepler nor tycho brahe nor a host
of others who laid the foundations of science
what we DO laugh at are the bozos like yourself who take the most
commonly used failed idea in history...creationism...and try to
resurrect its stinking, rotting corpse and use it as science
>
> Evolution is a lie. The only observed evolution that takes place with in the kind. Exactly as
> the bible says. "each after his kind". The bible also says "be fruitful and multiply". This is
> fully understood by science when a wolf gives rise to many different kinds of dogs. The wolf did
> not Divide into a different species, it Multiplied into dogs because the wolf and the dog are
> genetically the same kind.
> --
you want a lie? how about 'god did it'? has that idea ever worked?
nope...never. not once
chris thompson
Actually, when most of us look back and examine the work of scientists
1000 years ago, we're amazed they accomplished so much with so little.
You know, this wasn't 1000 years ago, more like 100, but I always hear
people complain that it's impossible to maintain sterile cultures
without laminar flow hoods, gallons of bleach or betadine, UV lights,
antibiotics and antifungals in the media...the list goes on.
Well, yeah, life is made a lot easier with those things. But if you
look at the work of microbiologists in the 18th and 19th centuries,
they managed to do OK without any of that stuff. And I don't see
anyone laughing at Pasteur or Koch.
So no, only an idiot laughs at the people of 1000 years ago. They did
the best they could with what they had, and accomplished great things.
In fact, we couldn't be doing what we do today without their work.
But it just goes to show your attitude toward science in general that
you feel that way. How you can worship the scribblings of a bunch of
guys who told each other tall tales once they got through screwing the
goats, and yet laugh at the work of people like Mendeleev, says more
about you than about the scientists.
> Evolution is a lie. The only observed evolution that takes place with in the kind. Exactly as
> the bible says. "each after his kind". The bible also says "be fruitful and multiply". This is
> fully understood by science when a wolf gives rise to many different kinds of dogs. The wolf did
> not Divide into a different species, it Multiplied into dogs because the wolf and the dog are
> genetically the same kind.
Are dogs, wolves, foxes and coyotes all in the same kind?
> --
>
> Edcuating you on difference between division and multiplication with:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
But not spelling...
Chris
TomS
<a38ad5cb-28ef-4b54...@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, wf3h
stated..."
>
>On Nov 25, 9:54=A0am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>
>>
>> What is to learn? Your science is a joke.
>>
>ghing their ass off at
>the same way scientists
>> today laugh and wonder how man 1000 years ago believed what they believed=
>.
>
>wrong. we don't laugh at newton, nor kepler nor tycho brahe nor a host
>of others who laid the foundations of science
>
>what we DO laugh at are the bozos like yourself who take the most
>commonly used failed idea in history...creationism...and try to
>resurrect its stinking, rotting corpse and use it as science
The time scale on "the imminent demise of evolution" is being extended
quite a bit, isn't it?
<http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm>
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
R. Baldwin
def805...@v13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
Sorry, I see that you had a different context in mind. I was thinking in
terms of macro physics, and apparently you were trying to describe
quantum physics. But no, out of the four fundamental forces in quantum
physics, the electromagnetic force is not the cause of randomness, and
neither is gravity. I'm guessing (since your language is imprecise) that
by randomness you are referring to quantum indeterminacy. Indeterminacy
is not derived from disturbance (forces). It is a fundamental aspect of
quantum mechanics.
Indeterminacy arises from wave-particle duality. The subatomic particle
is not a hard sphere occupying a point in space, its position follows a
probability distribution. Since position and momentum are conjugate
variables, tighting the probability distribution of position causes the
probability distribution in momentum to widem, and vice versa. Hence, it
is not possible to simultaneously know both position and momentum with
arbitrary precision, and we are left with indeterminacy,
None of this has anything to do with whether you are a "design
theorist," whatever that is.
You appear to be confusing the DNA replication process with mutational
errors. The replication process is not the mutational process, and is
not random. The mutational process is a disruption to the replication
process and is random. Mutations might be either random (indeterminate)
or random (too hard to compute because there are way too many
interacting variables and the necessary computing resources are
impractically vast, but generally following a probability distriubtion).
We really don't care which, because it makes no practical difference.
You didn't answer my question about cis-acting processes. Which
particular processes are you referring to?
There have indeed been observed mutations that are "applicable" in a
life form, since that would include both harmful and beneficial
mutations, both of which have been observed.
R. Baldwin
2b0518...@t11g2000yqg.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 24, 7:43 pm, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> "By experiments and the Bell Inequality theorem."
>
> That deals with local or physically hidden particles and in no way
> relates with what intelligent design or order would suggest.
Well, that is true, but I don't see why it should be a problem, since these
are entirely unrelated fields. You don't appear to grasp that Stuart in
fact addressed the issue.
> A channeled directive, whether doppler waves or force fields, or
> individually emanating particles in synchronized forms, none of which
> would be observable, detectable or related with laws of
> thermodynamics, and it all can just as well explain order and not
> random. Now this is coming from a layman not an physicist, but you
> should make sense out of it.
It is not possible to make sense out of it, because it simply does not make
sense.
The Doppler phenomenon is a result of the relative motion of an observer
and a wave source, having nothing to do with "channeled directives."
What you mean by "force field" and how that relates to "channeled
directives" is hopelessly unclear.
Your phrase "individually emanating particles in synchronized forms" has no
meaning whatsoever in physics. I've seen better prose in spam e-mail.
The laws of thermodynamics do not address whether something is observable
or detectable.
You used the word "related" apparently without pairing two or more concepts
that could have a relationship.
>
> There are no evidences of random events in the natural world.
So far, the Bell Inequality experiments do indeed point to quantum
indeterminacy.
> Noone can possibly trace the ultimate cause of any given event.
>
That is correct, though you don't appear to understand its correlation to
indeterminacy.
Stuart
> On Nov 24, 7:43 pm, Stuart <bigdak...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> "By experiments and the Bell Inequality theorem."
>
> That deals with local or physically hidden particles and in no way
> relates with what intelligent design or order would suggest
I didn't claim it had anything to do with intelligent design.
I do claim it has bearing as to your claims that randomness is
"apparent"
as opposed to real.
. A
> channeled directive, whether doppler waves or force fields, or
> individually emanating particles in synchronized forms, none of which
> would be observable, detectable or related with laws of
> thermodynamics, and it all can just as well explain order and not
> random. Now this is coming from a layman not an physicist, but you
> should make sense out of it.
No, I can't make sense out of it, because what you wrote is
nonsensical gibberish.
Stuart
Stuart
Translation: "IF science hasn't explained something by now, it must
have been ordered, designed and fabricated by a God(s)."
Does that about sum up your point of view?
Stuart
Stuart
Of that I have no doubt.
On the other hand, just think of how much harder they will be laughing
at clowns like you...
Stuart
Mark Isaak
> On Nov 24, 3:40 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> "That argument pretty well rules out the existence of god. The
> movement of molecules in a gas is random. The decay of a radioactive
> particle is random. Quantum fluctuations are random. You won't be able
> to present any argument if you do not learn something about the nature
> of science."
>
> You are taking my words out of context. I said I cannot see how anyone
> can be a creationist while accepting the unproven falsity of
> "randomness" associated with the development of and sustaining of life.
> God would not have created chaos, which random is. Its a disorderly
> state resulting in random cause and effect results.
First, chaos is not random, and randomness is not chaotic.
Second, how did you get into the position of outranking God, so that you
get to say what he does and does not get to do?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Mark Isaak
> On Nov 24, 3:39 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>[Gerard says randomness is godlessness]
>
> "So you reject the Bible, too. After all, it can't be a real God
> which commands Aaron to draw lots for a sacrifice (Lev. 16:8), and
> when Joshua cast lots, it could not really have been in the presence
> of the Lord (Joshua 18:6-8). To give just two examples."
>
> Aaron and Joshua's proportioning of sacrifices or lands has absolutely
> nothing to do with science and the creation and sustaining of
> undecillions of living cells. Give me a break!
Aaron and Joshua had nothing to do with God, either, according to you.
How much more of the Bible is godless?
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Stuart wrote:
>>> On Nov 24, 5:22 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>>>> Stuart wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 22, 7:00 pm, Gerard <markgerard...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 22, 3:56 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>>>>
>>>>>>> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> "You have not identified *any* claims made by scientists which
>>>>>>> are *not* supported by evidence, and made a number of claims
>>>>>>> yourself which are unsupported assertions."
>>>>
>>>>>>> How does science prove a mutation is random as apposed to
>>>>>>> ordered?
>>>>
>>>>>> Ordered by what?
>>>>
>>>> Everything has been ordered, provisioned for, and setforth as it
>>>> was created.
>>>>
>>>> By God.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Got any evidence of that?
>>> Didn't think so.
>>>
>>> Give it up assman, you have nothing to offer.
>>>
>
>Are you THIS stupid?
No, you are the stupid one.
>
>Science cannot even explain what life is much less where it came from.
But it does a lot better on both than any religion does.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Not quite. I respect the scientists who went before. What I reject is
the religion that held sway for so long.
>
>Evolution is a lie.
No, you are the lie.
> The only observed evolution that takes place with in the kind.
Wrong again.
>Exactly as
>the bible says. "each after his kind". The bible also says "be fruitful and multiply". This is
>fully understood by science when a wolf gives rise to many different kinds of dogs. The wolf did
>not Divide into a different species, it Multiplied into dogs because the wolf and the dog are
>genetically the same kind.
Prove it.
--
Bob.
Chris Krolczyk
<johnethompson2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 22, 9:11 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 22, 3:25 pm, Chris Krolczyk <chriskrolc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Nah, it's just another trollish YEC who apparently thinks the
> > > equivalent
> > > of "you're a poopyhead and a meanie and I hate you" is a viable form
> > > of counterargument.
>
> > but i LIKE his idea of spanking! whips, chains...who knew the
> > creationists had such ideas...
>
> Brice Wellington used to claim that one of the main reasons the world
> was going to hell was that men didn't spank their wives enough.
Errrrrm...didn't Brice also assert that the reason he could be
referred to as
"one nut" (in the other sense) was that he spanked his Naughty Bits a
tad
too frequently as well?
Dunno if he ever got made as a troll, but he seemed zany that way.
-Chris K.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
Well, Gerard? No response?
>On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:46:52 -0800 (PST), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Gerard
><markge...@aol.com>:
>
>Let's add a bit of snipped context. You said:
>
>" I'm merely saying that scientists are abusing their
>fields."
>
>>Bob said:
>>
>>"What field of science are you trained in, where did you get
>>your training (and what level did you achieve) and how long
>>have you worked in that field?"
>>
>>That's not a pertinent question.
>
>Yes, I'm afraid it is. To be competent to judge whether
>"scientists are abusing their fields" you must be competent
>in science *and* in the particular field in question; even
>trained and experienced scientists aren't competent to judge
>another's work in a different field, although they can judge
>whether the other is following the rules of science.
>
>> It would have value if indeed I
>>stated that every scientist was corrupt.
>
>Nope; you have it exactly backward. One need not be a
>competent scientist to judge corruption, which isn't related
>to a particular field but to ethics. And one needn't be a
>scientist to understand ethics.
>
>> There are many many worthy
>>scientists who know their limitations, their parameters of study.
>
>Without competence in the field in question you have no way
>to judge this, since you know neither the limitations nor
>the parameters.
>
>> But
>>there are many others who cross those parameters to serve a dishonest
>>agenda. That's those who concocted the thousands of distortions in the
>>evidence. And it is those to whom I am addressing. The ones who
>>attribute life's development to something undemonstrable, when in
>>fact, they are scientists and must demonstate.
>
>They have done so. The fact that you fail to recognize the
>demonstration speaks to your lack of competence in the field
>in question. Do you consider yourself capable of determining
>whether an electrical engineer has used valid design
>techniques in your flat-screen TV, or whether a surgeon has
>used the best medical techniques while doing the bowel
>resection required by so much sitting in front of that TV
>and eating multiple bags of greasy potato chips? No? Then
>why do you consider yourself competent to judge whether a
>scientist has properly demonstrated support for a
>hypothesis, when you understand neither the hypothesis nor
>the process used to test it? Everything isn't lab
>experiments with flashing lights and frizzy-haired,
>wild-eyed individuals screaming "Eureka!"
>
>> They state that random
>>mutations are a mechanism behind evolution but cannot in any way
>>demonstrate that mutations are indeed "random" and not ordered.
>
>Perhaps you'd care to define "random" and show why the
>observed mutations don't qualify? Those who've analyzed the
>data have done so, and have come to the conclusion you
>question.
>
><snip the rest; no profit in further comment>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Gerard
<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
"So why not address the evidence that mutations *are* random in
respect of fitness?"
Because this is only observed in fine-line areas such as viruses and
antigens in immunology. These are areas covering death and disease,
not development of life structures or speciations. It has to do with
that fine line area between ID vs. Evolution argument. Where there is
survival of the fittest, but by design - IF we are to be open minded
on the prospect of obtaining ultimate truth and not limiting ourselves
to limited science. To prove soley on scientific criteria, chaotic
emanation and evolutional development of complex life via random
mutations and genetic drift, you have to demonstrate it in complex
lifeforms. Anything related directly with a death, decay, disease,
metabolic breakdown etc., but be omitted for the sake of fairness.
Call it my ID Fairness Doctrine, since Obama is up to rewriting rules
maybe I should. Anyway,I have listed several insect species which have
been studied, none revealing what you've noted as observed in
antigens. to be proven correct you must demonstrate this at a higher
more advanced level, and at a level which doesn't cross the fine-line
of LOGIC.
"Unless you can offer a way of testing this assertion using the tools
of science, it has no validity as science."
And who is it that dictates that SCIENCE is the sole criteria of
discerning intelligent design? Those who presumed it to be the only
methodology? Those who prematurely reject ID, then limit discerning
criteria to science alone based on that presumption? That's
intellectually dishonest, or at least, ignorant. Not sure which. But
had there been an Intelligent Designer who declared death and disease
for whatever reason, then many false assumptions, hence theories,
hence conclusions could've been averted or at least looked at more
honestly than scientists or should I say, evolutionists have done.
Evolutionists, at least most of them, are actually hijackers of
science. They sift through scientific evidence like Obama aids sifted
through Joe the Plumber or Sarah Palins shortcomings. Shame on them!
Gerard
<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
"there is no way in which the tools of science can be used to test for
the existence of God."
Well, there are ways that tools of science can error and put shadows
over the common evidences for the existence of God. Evidences that a
tribesman, a fisherman, a garbage disposal worker, or any of the 7
billion souls roaming the earth can commonly appreciate as reflections
of or from a creator. Appreciating a rainbow can be ruined by a
scientific breakdown when in fact, the vantage view of the rainbow was
designed or tailored for that vantage point as evidence presented. God
presents evidence and scientists get their grubby hands on it and
whether or not they are aware of it, are placing shadows over these
general evidences.
wf3h
> On Nov 25, 3:14 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> "So why not address the evidence that mutations *are* random in
> respect of fitness?"
>
> Because this is only observed in fine-line areas such as viruses and
> antigens in immunology. These are areas covering death and disease,
> not development of life structures or speciations. It has to do with
> that fine line area between ID vs. Evolution argument. Where there is
> survival of the fittest, but by design - IF we are to be open minded
> on the prospect of obtaining ultimate truth and not limiting ourselves
> to limited science.
oh darn. to think that religion made so much progress with its
assertion that demons caused disease, angels moved the planets, etc.
how COULD we have rejected that in favor of science?
you've confused being open minded with being gullible
and ultimate truth? go peddle your fantasies to children
To prove soley on scientific criteria, chaotic
> emanation and evolutional development of complex life via random
> mutations and genetic drift, you have to demonstrate it in complex
> lifeforms. Anything related directly with a death, decay, disease,
> metabolic breakdown etc., but be omitted for the sake of fairness.
> Call it my ID Fairness Doctrine, since Obama is up to rewriting rules
> maybe I should. Anyway,I have listed several insect species which have
> been studied, none revealing what you've noted as observed in
> antigens. to be proven correct you must demonstrate this at a higher
> more advanced level, and at a level which doesn't cross the fine-line
> of LOGIC.
ID has been used for 2000 years. for 2000 years it failed.
creationists are like children who believe in the tooth fairy
>
> "Unless you can offer a way of testing this assertion using the tools
> of science, it has no validity as science."
>
> And who is it that dictates that SCIENCE is the sole criteria of
> discerning intelligent design?
well, for starters there are the idiots in the ID movement who think
it's science. perhaps you should read them
> Evolutionists, at least most of them, are actually hijackers of
> science. They sift through scientific evidence like Obama aids sifted
> through Joe the Plumber or Sarah Palins shortcomings. Shame on them!
and those of us who are scientists, but not evolutionary biologists,
disagree. what we see is that your idea was the explanation of nature
for 2 millenia. and it was a dead end
Gerard
wrote:
-
"You appear to be confusing the DNA replication process with
mutational
errors. The replication process is not the mutational process, and is
not random. The mutational process is a disruption to the replication
process and is random."
I'll yield on the physics, mainly to address the heart of the matter,
pun intended ;-)
No, I wasn't confusing dna replicaton with mutations. I was, in my own
clumsy way including both of them in my point. But I have to disagree
with your next assertion:
"There have indeed been observed mutations that are "applicable" in a
life form, since that would include both harmful and beneficial
mutations, both of which have been observed."
Because there are harmful and beneficial speciations in viruses or
bacterias, or in immune systems cells, does not in any way demonstrate
advancement of complex life systems. It simply demonstrates what the
Intelligent Designer decreed thousands of years ago about death and
disease processes. Not good evidence. Show me a more complex species
benefiting from mutations and I'll accept it. Evolutionists must
deliver on their promise and its their burden to prove that evolution
of life systems developed and are developing the way they say it did
or predict it to be. All they show us is what the bible declared
thousands of years ago. Where's the beef?
In addressing cis regulatory processes, I'm saying they need to
demonstrate these, where-ever they apply in utilizing new alleles, in
demonstrating evolution of life via random mutations, how they are
utilized and then disperse through genetic drift. The burden of proof
is theirs and they must prove this.
wf3h
> On Nov 25, 6:55 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> "there is no way in which the tools of science can be used to test for
> the existence of God."
>
> Well, there are ways that tools of science can error and put shadows
> over the common evidences for the existence of God. Evidences that a
> tribesman, a fisherman, a garbage disposal worker, or any of the 7
> billion souls roaming the earth can commonly appreciate as reflections
> of or from a creator.
humans have made gods of the sky, sun, woods, trees, oceans, the moon,
and just about everything
which god you have in mind?
Appreciating a rainbow can be ruined by a
> scientific breakdown when in fact, the vantage view of the rainbow was
> designed or tailored for that vantage point as evidence presented. God
> presents evidence and scientists get their grubby hands on it and
> whether or not they are aware of it, are placing shadows over these
> general evidences.
au contraire. only someone of limited intellect such as yourself
thinks that understanding the science of a rainbow detracts from it. i
can't help it you're anti intellectual and worship ignorance.
go back to your cave, and shitting in your drinking water. if there
were more people like you there would be fewer people like you.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
Another worshipper of Ignorance. Another fool who prefers to jump to
unfounded conclusions based on ignorant suppositions than accept the
actual evidence carefully gathered by scientists.
--
Here is what Jesus said would happen to those who are intentionally
ignorant:
"Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten
talents. For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an
abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from
him. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where
there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Gerard
wrote:
ger > Noone can possibly trace the ultimate cause of any given event.
Baldwin <"That is correct, though you don't appear to understand its
correlation to
indeterminacy."
ger< Well as you demonstrated, I'm aloof on quantum physics. I'll have
to confide in what arguments are being presented for design/order at
this level BY qualified physicists. However, I'd expect that
metaphysical information would sound similiarly alien to physics. But
I know when to yield and this is one area I'll regress on for the time
being.
Gerard
"Another worshipper of Ignorance. Another fool who prefers to jump to
unfounded conclusions based on ignorant suppositions than accept the
actual evidence carefully gathered by scientists."
Carefully gathered by scientists. How eloquent. Oh those poor innocent
evolutionary scientists being persecuted for humanists' sake. They'll
inherit the earth, all of it. All six feet of it. Because thats all
they acknowledged and demonstrated in their lives. You can probably
count on one hand the number of evolutionists who live a saintly
lifestyle.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Nov 25, 3:14 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> "So why not address the evidence that mutations *are* random in
> respect of fitness?"
>
> Because this is only observed in fine-line areas such as viruses and
> antigens in immunology.
Wrong again.
It's been observed humans.
In fact it's been observed in every organism we've studied.
> These are areas covering death and disease,
> not development of life structures or speciations.
Nope. Mutations are mutations. They may cause disease, they may cause
death, they may give selective advantage for an organism. Most have no
effect at all.
> It has to do with
> that fine line area between ID vs. Evolution argument.
Nope. It has nothing to do with the ID (i.e. creationism) v. Evolution
argument.
That argument is about honesty. The way in which the claims of
creationists that their religious convictions are supported by science
are promoted is deeply and systematically dishonest. I've posted
evidence to support this conclusion over and over again, but
creationists seem uninterested in evidence.
> Where there is
> survival of the fittest, but by design - IF we are to be open minded
> on the prospect of obtaining ultimate truth and not limiting ourselves
> to limited science.
Who is offering "ultimate truth"? Science makes no such claim. It
offers provisional explanations for phenomena which can be observed
and measured. All scientific explanations are subject to revision or
rejection if that is what the evidence demands.
There are many scientists who see "ultimate truth" in their religious
convictions. That does not mean that they think those truths are the
provenance of science.
> To prove soley on scientific criteria, chaotic
> emanation and evolutional development of complex life via random
> mutations and genetic drift, you have to demonstrate it in complex
> lifeforms.
By scientific criteria evolution is the only explanation. You may
chose to reject science, but unless you can provide a better, testable
explanation for the vast amount of evidence which is explained by
evolutionary theory, there is no reason to reject the scientific
explanation.
> Anything related directly with a death, decay, disease,
> metabolic breakdown etc., but be omitted for the sake of fairness.
In what way is that "fairness"? They are phenomena we can observe and
measure, and which are relevant to evolutionary biology.
> Call it my ID Fairness Doctrine, since Obama is up to rewriting rules
> maybe I should.
You can rewrite the rules to your heart's content, but unless you can
provide a reasonable argument as to why we should follow your rules
rather than the rules which science has developed over many centuries,
and demonstrate that by following your rules we can find explanations
as powerful as those provided by science, why on earth should anyone
else follow them?
> Anyway,I have listed several insect species which have
> been studied, none revealing what you've noted as observed in
> antigens.
Excuse me? I can recall no such post, and rather more to the point,
this sentence makes little sense.
> to be proven correct you must demonstrate this at a higher
> more advanced level, and at a level which doesn't cross the fine-line
> of LOGIC.
Demonstrate what? That mutations are random in respect of fitness?
There's a huge body of scientific publication on the subject, but I
doubt that you have the necessary level of specialist education to
make sense of the material. I've offered to help you remedy this
defect in your education, but you have no interest in doing so.
>
> "Unless you can offer a way of testing this assertion using the tools
> of science, it has no validity as science."
>
> And who is it that dictates that SCIENCE is the sole criteria of
> discerning intelligent design?
It's the "intelligent design" creationists. They are claiming that ID
is a scientific theory and should be taught as science in science
classes. Are you suggesting that they should be excluded from the
usual requirement of science that it's claims should be testable using
the tools of science?
> Those who presumed it to be the only
> methodology?
No, those who claim that their religious convictions should be taught
as science in science classes.
>Those who prematurely reject ID, then limit discerning
> criteria to science alone based on that presumption?
Why should those claiming that their religious convictions are
supported by science be excused the usual criteria set by science for
justifying those claims?
> That's
> intellectually dishonest, or at least, ignorant.
Quite so. It's not the scientists who are intellectually dishonest,
but the creationists.
> Not sure which.
If you took the time to educate yourself in the nature of science you
would be sure.
> But
> had there been an Intelligent Designer who declared death and disease
> for whatever reason, then many false assumptions, hence theories,
> hence conclusions could've been averted or at least looked at more
> honestly than scientists or should I say, evolutionists have done.
How?
> Evolutionists, at least most of them, are actually hijackers of
> science.
...and here you go back to your empty rhetoric as if by repeating
something over and over again you will make it true.
Evolutionary theory is accepted by virtually every biologist on the
planet as the unifying theory which gives structure to their
discipline. The only biologists who reject it are those motivated by
religious prejudice.
If, as you claim, evolutionary biology is *not* science, how on earth
do you think that all those universities, research institutes and all
the other places in which it is studied, researched and taught could
have been deceived?
What do you know about science that all those researchers,
administrators, funding bodies and corporations don't? Bear in mind
that you have refused my offer to help you learn something about the
nature of science.
> They sift through scientific evidence like Obama aids sifted
> through Joe the Plumber or Sarah Palins shortcomings. Shame on them!
Why do you think that empty rhetoric adds any weight to your argument?
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Nov 25, 6:55 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> "there is no way in which the tools of science can be used to test for
> the existence of God."
>
> Well, there are ways that tools of science can error and put shadows
> over the common evidences for the existence of God.
If your belief in God is so fragile that it can be challenged by the
evidence from the universe you believe that your God created, it tells
us more about the value of your faith than it does about the nature of
science.
> Evidences that a
> tribesman, a fisherman, a garbage disposal worker, or any of the 7
> billion souls roaming the earth can commonly appreciate as reflections
> of or from a creator.
...or, for that matter, an evolutionary biologist unraveling the
intricacies of the genome, or a palaeontologist discovering a new
species in the fossil record.
> Appreciating a rainbow can be ruined by a
> scientific breakdown when in fact, the vantage view of the rainbow was
> designed or tailored for that vantage point as evidence presented.
Do you think that scientists are such ignorant clods that they are
unable to appreciate such things?
> God
> presents evidence and scientists get their grubby hands on it and
> whether or not they are aware of it, are placing shadows over these
> general evidences.
So more empty rhetoric. It seems that is all you have to offer.
This issue is about the claims of creationists that their religious
convictions should be taught as science in science classes. This is
not a case of scientists demanding that religious belief should be
tested using the tools of science, but of *creationists* claiming that
their religious beliefs should be accorded the status of scientific
theory.
Why should those claims not be treated in exactly the same way as any
other scientific claim?
And why should those claims not be rejected when it is clear not only
that they have no scientific merit, but they are pursued using methods
which are deeply and systematically dishonest?
When it comes down to basics this is not an issue of science v.
religion. It's a simple issue of honesty. I oppose creationism because
I have found the movement to be deeply and systematically dishonest,
and I abhor dishonesty, especially when it comes from those claiming
the moral high ground.
RF
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
How many "evolutionists" do you know?
Making things up about people you don't know seems to be a common
practice for creationists. Most of us would think such behaviour
dishonest, but creationists seem to think that they are excused from
such considerations.
I have been reading creationist sources for over 30 years, ever since
I was presented with copies of "Evolution - The Fossils say No!" and
"Scientific Creationism". Having read them, my impression was that
they were deeply and systematically dishonest, and none of the other
creationist books, pamphlets or web sites I have read since, any of
the dialogues I have had with creationists on this and other forums,
or what I have seen on TV or read in the media has given me a reason
to change that original impression.
I don't ask anyone to take my word for this. As a scientist, I know
that unsupported assertions are not evidence. This is why I have set
up a number of analyses of creationist web sites here:
http://www.plesiosaur.com/creationism/index.php. I have identfied
numerous examples of misrepresentation, distortion and outright
falsehoods on those sites. If you or any other creationist can
demonstrate *with evidence* that I am incorrect in any of my
conclusions, feel free to do so.
If you or any other creationist can post a link to a creationist web
site which presents the evidence honestly, feel free to do so.
If you or any other creationist can demonstrate that *any*
"evolutionist" site is riddled with misrepresentation, distortion and
outright falsehoods, feel free to do so.
It's worth noting that no creationist has
1) demonstrated that I am wrong in identifying misrepresentation,
distortion and outright falsehoods on those sites
2) provided a link to *any* honest creationist site or
3) demonstrated misrepresentation, distortion and outright falsehoods
on *any* "evolutionist" site.
I think that the only reasonable conclusions are that
1) Creationism as a movement is deeply and systematically dishonest
and
2) creationists find such dishonesty acceptable and
3) creationists think it acceptable to accuse others of dishonesty
without evidence that this is the case.
What do you think this tells us about the claims of creationists for
the moral high ground?
RF
Ye Old One
>On Nov 25, 6:55 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
><richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>"there is no way in which the tools of science can be used to test for
>the existence of God."
>
>Well, there are ways that tools of science can error and put shadows
>over the common evidences for the existence of God.
There is no evidence.
> Evidences that a
>tribesman, a fisherman, a garbage disposal worker, or any of the 7
>billion souls roaming the earth can commonly appreciate as reflections
>of or from a creator.
There is no evidence.
> Appreciating a rainbow can be ruined by a
>scientific breakdown when in fact, the vantage view of the rainbow was
>designed or tailored for that vantage point as evidence presented. God
>presents evidence and scientists get their grubby hands on it and
>whether or not they are aware of it, are placing shadows over these
>general evidences.
Science explains the world and finds no evidence for gods nor for the
need for gods.
--
Bob.
Cory Albrecht
Nice to see, Gerard, that you use the typical creationist ploy of
Argumentum Ad Hominem.
If I say "You're wrong because you're an idiot", does that then make me
right?
Mark Isaak
> On Nov 25, 6:55 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> "there is no way in which the tools of science can be used to test for
> the existence of God."
>
> Well, there are ways that tools of science can error and put shadows
> over the common evidences for the existence of God.
The day you give me solid, unambiguous physical evidence for the
existence of God is the day that I become an atheist, because what you
will have shown me is not what I would consider a god.
chris thompson
Only if you replace "because" with "and".
Chris
wf3h
You can probably
> count on one hand the number of evolutionists who live a saintly
> lifestyle.
and you can count on the 6th finger of either hand the number of
taliban christians who've done likewise
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
"Six Finger, Six Finger, man alive
How did I ever do with five?"
Did I watch too much television as a child?