Cubist
Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007
|
| Quote (bjray @ April 22 2010,23:41) | | You use harsh language about how ID'ers show poor evidence, ID'ers cannot stand up to real biology, ID'ers promote god-of-the-gaps arguments, ID'ers..you know what you say. |
Yes, we do say those things. We say them because we believe they're true. Would you like to try to demonstrate that any of those things we say are not true... or would you rather (continue to) whine about how mean those nasty evilutionismustistas are to say those terribly, terribly hurtful things?
| Quote | | But you, yourself, said that "science is based on evidence that stands up to everything." Are you telling me that evolution has passed this test? |
Yes. That's exactly what we're telling you. Would you like to learn about any of the tests which evolution has stood up to thus far?
| Quote | | I'm not telling you that God's actions in science/creation (what have you) can be fully explained. (Ie: now you accuse me of OH "god-of-the-gaps" right there...) It would seem to me that evolution does not stand to every "evidence" it provides. |
What does "stand to every 'evidence'" mean? I've never encountered that phrase before, and it's not immediately obvious to me what you're tryna say... could you translate that from the original English, please?
| Quote | | Furthermore, evolution has attempted to attribute cause to creation, of which Darwin never intended to do (as noted by Sledgehammer). |
Hold it. What the fuck does "attempted to attribute cause to creation" even mean? Again: Can you translate this from the original English?
| Quote | | One cannot provide evidence for some "big bang" or "primordial soup" or whatever the new story is this time around. |
I begin to suspect that you have no idea whatsoever what 'scientific evidence' is. And given that you cite "big bang" and "primordial soup" as if these two very different notions were both instances of one single "new story", I also begin to suspect that you haven't fucking read any of the replies to you which pointed out that abiogenesis (see also: "primordial soup") is not the same fucking theory as the big bang -- or, if you did indeed manage to read any of those replies, you damn sure didn't understand them. Because if you did read and understand those replies, you wouldn't have repeated the same fucking "big bang = abiogenesis" mistake for which those replies corrected you in the first place!
Then again, perhaps you did read and understand the replies which corrected you. But if that's the case, your insistence on repeating your earlier error, in spite of having been corrected on it, would not reflect well upon your intellectual capacities.
| Quote | So I submit to you that evolution also fails in many areas.
It just so happens that at present I'm in a philosophy course. I've taken the biology (albeit, my degree does not have that major listed). All I'm saying is that evolution does not do all that you say and praise it for. |
Yes, that is indeed what you are saying. Since you were apparently under the impression that evolution has something to do with how the Earth originally formed... who fucking cares what you have to say about evolution? Yes, you have a right to your own opinion. But being taken seriously by other people... now, that is not a right. Rather, being taken seriously by other people is a privilege which must be earned, and the way one earns that priviligege is by demonstrating that one knows what the fuck one is talking about. Which you don't, at present.
| Quote | | A few that I always pondered were: the "gene for everything" idea, explanation of morality... |
What's wrong with the existing evolutionary explanations for morality?
Do you even know what the existing evolutionary explanations for morality are? Or are you (still) working with bullshit distortions rather than the actual science?
| Quote | | ...explanation for self-preservation... |
What's wrong with the existing evolutionary explanations for self-preservation?
Do you even know what the existing evolutionary explanations for self-preservation are? Or are you (still) working with bullshit distortions rather than the actual science?
| Quote | | ...failure to explain gene similarities among humans... |
Hold it. Given that all humans share common ancestors, what the heck needs to be explained about "gene similarities among humans"? Is there something wrong with the explanation that similar genes were inherited from commmon ancestors?
| Quote | | ...failure to explain how pure randomness can account for "social insects" ie: ants, bees. |
Guess what? Evolution does not say that "pure randomness" accounts for social insects. In fact, evolution doesn't say that "pure randomness" can, or does, account for anything whatsoever. Those sources you're depending on for your knowledge of evolution... well, they fucking suck. In fact, those sources suck great green rocks with a Dixie straw. Hint: Any putative "theory of evolution" which leaves out selection is a bogus caricature of the genuine article. And once you throw selection into the mix, well, whatever "randomness" may be involved becomes, at the very least, decidedly impure, ennit?
| Quote | | My measly list could go on. |
I'm sure it could. And if the rest of this list is anything like the items you cited here, said list is strongly persuasive, if not downright conclusive, evidence that you have no fucking clue whatsoever when it comes to evolution.
| Quote | | So I'll end this post with a question based on some of the further posts I've read. Is it simply that because Creationists attribute what might be a scientifically explainable event to an Intelligent Designer the primary issue? |
Oh, please. Dude, you do not get to play the 'dem eevil Darwinismists HATE TEH IJNTELLIJINT DEEZYNE!!1!" card. It may come as a shock to you, but there are entire fields of scientific study -- archaeology and forensics are the first two which come to mind -- which are all about 'intelligent design'. The difference between 'intelligent design' as practiced by real scientists, and Intelligent Design as practiced by the likes of Dembski and Behe, is that real scientists think somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something is a mindlessly vague chunk of verbiage rather than a cutting-edge hypothesis. And if you think somehow, somewhere, somewhen, somebody intelligent did something is not an accurate summary of Intelligent Design 'theory', by all means feel free to clue us all in to how real ID 'theory' differs from my seven-word summary.
| Quote | | Or, is it because Creationists do not use evolution to help explain their work? |
No. It's because Creationists don't fucking explain anything -- and then they piss and moan about how real scientists laugh at Creationists' and-then-a-miracle-occured not-an-explanation verbiage.
| Quote | | Or, is it that Creationists use a "get out of jail free" by attributing God to various things that science can explain? I desire to know what the underlying issue is. |
I'm not sure there is any 1 (one) single underlying issue behind real scientists' rejection of Creationism; rather, I believe there are lots of underlying issues, not all of which are equally important to all real scientists.
For some scientists, it could be Creationists' insistence on miseducating innocent children with lies and pre-refuted old garbage.
For some scientists, it could be Creationists' flagrant ignorance of the scientific literature -- as in Behe's resurrection of Muller's "interlocking complexity" under the new name "irreducible complexity", without any discernable indication that Behe was aware of Muller's earlier work.
For some scientists, it could be Creationists' habit of leaping to conclusions which simply are not supported by whichever data the Creationists were allegedly basing their conclusions on -- as in Behe's argument that a limited subset of Darwinian processes cannot produce an IC system, therefore no evolutionary processes whatsoever can produce an IC system, therefore any IC system must necessarily have been produced by an Intelligent Designer.
For some scientists, it could be Creationists' habit of twisting scientists' words so that the (mis-)quoted scientists appear to be saying that evolution is Teh Suxxors, when, in reality, the (mis-)quoted scientists were not saying anything of the kind.
For some scientists, it could be Creationists' incessant drumbeat of slanderous lies about evolution is evil, the Nazis were evolutionists, evolution is evil, Darwin was a racist, evolution = eugenics, yada yada yada.
For some scientists, it could be Creationists' habit of using literary criticism in place of scientific argument.
For some scientists, it could be the massive, unrelenting, top-to-bottom dishonesty of the entire Creationist enterprise.
For some scientists, it could be the fact that Creationists' deceitful behavior is a massive stumbling block which prevents honest unbelievers from accepting Christ.
For some scientists, it could be Creationists' reflexive habit of re-using old, refuted arguments as if those arguments had never been refuted in the first place.
| Quote | Btw, I will comment that I did read that the Dover case "proved" along with some other work that IC has already been proved that it COULD happen through natural causes. (ok, interesting stuff, I'll look more into that. Thanks.) This is not something earth-shattering to me. Matter a fact, I already knew that evolutionary proponents had written material attempting to explain their side. It's interesting stuff.
oldmanintheskydidntdoit - the facts do matter. :)
Ah, so many more to comment on. I'll do another tomorrow.
Oh, but one more - Albatrosity (nice name btw). Ok, I hear everyone. Don't get hung up on Darwin. His intentions are of no consequence. And I agree with your third point. Science is an ever-changing field of study. I'd like to point out though that the only thing I know of that is immutable is God. I don't think my science is or what have you. (if that's what you were trying to point out..) |
No; I think he was trying to point out that science and religion are very different games, and if you approach science as if it was just another religion, you will crash and burn. Like, just for grins, if you think "well, Christianity stands or falls on its personal source, Jesus Christ. therefore, evolution must necessarily also stand or fall on its personal source, Charles Darwin."
| Quote | | Lastly, my whole point of bringing up Darwin's intentions were simply my attempt to understand the basis for his life's work. |
That's fine, but again: The scientific validity (or lack thereof) of Darwin's work has nothing whatsoever to do with Darwin's intentions, and everything to do with, like, the work itself.
|
