Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Avocationist

Pages: (14) < ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 >

qetzal Posts: 311 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2006,10:40    Avocationist, Quote Now, you say that if we don't know how something evolved, the only reasonble conclusion is to assume that our present knowledge is insufficient to explain how. But it is more than just a lack of knowledge of how. It is a thing which gives every indication of being utterly outside of the capability of anything we know about nature's processes and quite readily recognizable as just the sort of thing a purposeful intelligence might set out to accomplish. I disagree with your last sentence. Strongly. What we currently know about evolution is certainly adequate in principle to explain complex features of life. One can reasonably question whether we have a specific, well-supported evolutionary explanation for any given feature, such as the flagellum. One can reasonably question whether that evolutionary explanation is correct. But if you're claiming that things like flagella are "utterly outside" our ability to explain by evolution, you're seriously mistaken. Quote Must? Well, yeah, and one of those other mechanisms might have been purposeful design. But if you say that unintelligent processes must have been involved, then you are saying that your mind is made up and will not take in any contrary information. I don't say unintelligent processes must have been involved. Only that there are certain unintelligent processes that we know exist. In many cases, they provide more than adequate explanations. In other cases, they have the clear potential to provide adequate explanations, even if we don't have the details yet. More important, I know of no case where unintelligent processes are clearly inadequate to explain the diversity and complexity of life. Nor have I seen any scientific data to support purposeful design. It's not that I've made up my mind not to take in contrary information. There is no significant contrary information to take in. Evidence against current evolutionary explanations does not qualify as evidence for intelligent intervention. Claims that evolution is too improbable do not qualify as evidence for intelligent design. Claims that we can recognize the hallmarks of design don't qualify either. Not unless there's an objective, testable way to distinguish designed from not-designed. So far, there isn't. Quote I agree, but neither is it [intelligent guidance] an unreasonable answer. Well, since it is unsupported by scientific evidence, it is certainly quite unreasonable as a scientific answer. Quote At some point if intelligence was indeed involved, we must surely be able to discern the difference between what an intelligence can do versus lack of same. I applaud this attitude, especially if discern means scientifically demonstrate. My question is, do you think there's any chance the major ID proponents will try to do this? When do you think they'll start developing rigorous design hypotheses, making predictions, testing those predictions, and showing how ID can usefully explain things that evolution can't? So far, I see no evidence that they're doing any of that. I assure, I am quite willing to accept good scientific evidence in favor of ID. Too bad no one seems to be interested in generating any. They mostly seem preoccupied with bashing evolution. Their few arguments in favor of ID are subjective, philosophical, and unscientific. They make no testable predictions. They don't do science. When and if there's real science to support ID, I'll be happy to consider it. Until then, it's philosophy on a good day, and plain garbage most of the time.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2006,05:31    Quote If I understand correctly, you think that the proteins can co-evolve. But just saying you think it can be done doesn't seem to get to the heart of the problems with it. Yet two people say they have read Behe's book and aren't impressed. you were one of them. I am a bit stumped by this.  know you have probably already stated it, but why do you consider IC to be attacking a straw man? Simply my problem with the concept is that if you take a protein away from a complex and the complex ceases to function, this does not mean the complex could not have evolved by stepwise addition of parts. Secondly even if it couldn't this is not the only route of evolution. Maybe a staw man isnt the best term to use, but Behe is ruling out one path of evolution and then saying that the system is designed. Quote I guess I find myself asking, in light of what I have read not only about the flagellum but the complexity of the cell and DNA and replication and so forth, at what point might a design inference become rational? What would it take? To me the construction of these things seems so very like something we would do that I tend to actually find it difficult to envision the Absolute, Infinite God doing it. It looks like the handiwork of a being more like us. I agree with you more than the people who say the perfection of the flagelum is an argument for design. In a few decades I expect it to be very inefficient compared to what we can create. To be honest I am not sure where the 'tipping point' would be for me where a design inference would be warranted, the first step would be the hypothesis of design making better predictions about the system than the non-design hypothesis. Also evidence that actualy contradicts evolution instead of just evidence we cant currently explain would help. Quote I answered that at the very least, random mutations just wasn't adequate. There has to be at least one more major factor that we have not discovered, similar to the way that Darwin had not discovered genes. But if we end up finding these sticky laws and self-organizational principles, it is going to look like a grand, intelligently set-up scheme anyway. Maybe, I don't pay much attention to these laws of physics anthropic principe arguments, but from what I have read I have not seen scientific evidence for intelligence. My position has always been that there is no evidence that an intelligence has actively interfiered with evolution, or created organisms whole, as far as Im concerned if these laws are found it will strengthen my position on the whole thing, it just means that evolution becomes more probable. On the other hand you might be right and if the laws of physics were set up there is no reason that god wouldnt also control evolution as well, and we should find evidence, this is not an unreasonable argument: there just isnt any evidence yet. Quote As for me, I don't have a problem with a low probability event from time to time. I have a problem with evolution seeming to require a steady diet of them. What I mean is that saying the particular path of mutations that led to us is very improbable is fair enough, in the same way that saying that the chance of everyone who has ever won the lottery winning in that order is also very improbable. For each mutation that led to the development of the falgellum in a particular bacteria, there were millions that didn't in the same generation. Dembski does not model evolution as a branching and pruning process, which is what it is.

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2006,09:14    Today I was eating a grilled cheese sandwich...and i started thinking about IDists and Evolutionists. An IDist would look at my grilled cheese sandwich and say..."Do you see how it is perfectly melted? Do you see how the cheese meets perfectly with the bread? Do you see the uniform toasting pattern?  This sandwich was obviously cooked by an experienced grilled cheese maker....maybe even a professional chef" An Evolutionist would look at that same sandwich and might say..."Do you see that burn pattern on the sandwich?  that is the same burn pattern that would be generated in a Teflon skillet preheated to 1000 degrees F and left on each side for 20 minutes.  That cheese is the same aroma and color as Brie.  The bread is obviously old stale bread...you can tell by the appearance of fungal spores." Now, they may both be wrong.  I made the grilled cheese...and Im no expert.  Also I didnt make the grilled cheese at such an insanely high heat for such a long period of time.  I also didnt use Brie cheese and it wasnt moldy bread. What is the difference though if they are both wrong?  Well, we can run some experiments and show the Evolutionist that it wouldnt require those temperatures or that type of cheese.  Since all of his conclusions are based on empircal evidence....As soon as the scientist observes that the pattern could be made with a much cooler skillet and a much shorter time....he will change his "theory". The IDist however based all of his "theory" on opinion.  He used a very subjective term...expert.  Now,  how do i convince the IDist that an expert didnt cook the grilled cheese?  I guess i could show them a videotape of me cooking the grilled cheese.  I guess i could then show them that I am not an expert(i dont know how?)  How do I convince them that the grilled cheese just "looks" perfect...that it actually isnt? Either way...Im still eating a grilled cheese sandwich

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2006,10:03    Ah, but you didn't say if there was an image of the Virgin Mary in that cheese!!! Henry

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2006,19:13    What is it about this particular site that it goes down so often? I logged on to reply three nights in a row and hit times when it "couldn't be found." Rest of internet OK, and this has happened quite a few other times. Quetzal- Quote Mike Gene's essays only call into question whether the flagellum can be adequately explained by 'undirected' mechansims such as co-evolution. I freely admit I'm not in a position to refute all of his points. This isn't really my area. But consider: Mike Gene is doing what many ID proponents do. He's selecting one particular system and saying, "This system is way too complex to have evolved without intelligent guidance." In doing so, he in no way refutes non-directed evolution in general. At best, he can only claim that we don't know enough at present to adequately explain how the flagellum might have evolved. But he presumably wants to take that a step further, and claim there is no way in principle that the flagellum could have evolved without intelligent intervention. If we find even one system that truly cannot be explained by random mutation, then evolution is in trouble. As for selecting one system, we must start somewhere, and focus on particular systems is the only way to go anyway, to gain the deepest understanding. I know I already responded to this post. I'm trying to figure out where I left off. Henry said: Quote My take on it: Not seeing descendants from fusion events that produced incoherent results doesn't mean they didn't happen - it means if it happened, they died without leaving descendants. OK, but the existence of failures doesn't detract from the need to explain success. And this:   Quote Well, if series of small steps is ruled out, that leaves only one huge step, which seems to me to be enormously less likely. And since complex life forms exist, that means picking the less unlikely of two very unlikelies. Besides, how does one know that the intermediate stages don't work? You'd have to rule out every possible sequence to know that. Well, a lot of people are not satisfied to simply decide to believe in evolution because the evidence that paleontolgoy points to is unacceptable. Being unacceptable to you, makes it seem ludicrous or implausible to you. Or, as Bodhidharma, one of the greatest zen teachers of all time said, "Behold the mind." No, Henry, I will never submit to simply picking the least objectionable of two objectionable theories. Better to just hold out. It isn't just a matter of ruling out every possible sequence. It isn't just one little item. There are too many miracles in evolution, and by the way, I don't believe in miracles. And some things do appear unlikely in principle, such as a slow  change from a limb to a wing. And this:   Quote But, an arm is already a partially evolved wing. An arm with a large surface area is moreso. Besides which "that's inconceivable" isn't a valid argument - otherwise much of physics would have been thrown out before it got started. If an arm is a partially evolved wing, then anything is anything. I can only suggest reading Denton's  Evolution, chapter 9, pages 199-209, and if you like it, continue to read about the avian lung on page 210. Chris, Quote Add up to what? purpoesful arrangement of parts is a tautology. Why is it a tautology, and why is a tautology always wrong? Quote Hubert Yockey said intelligence is not required and that intelligent design is rubbish. Yes, he is an evolutionist, who says strange and discouraging things about origin of life research. Frankly, I don't know what he means when he says that life is an axiom and unsolvable within science. I wonder if he knows. Quote If the universe was not 'well aranged' and we saw life then maybe that would be a better argument for intelligence. But it is life that it is well arranged for. It's looking like the whole inanimate world lends support to the animate world. GCT, Quote One quick example, which I've already pointed out is where you chided me with the knowledge that one can believe in god and accept evolution, even though I had already used it to counter your arguments that ToE is atheistic. Yes, I have come to see from you and others that NDE is more accepting of theism than I had thought. I should have prefaced my comment with "As you have pointed out..." Quote Of course, then you still turn around and insist that Miller must be an IDist since he believes in god. Yes, Miller is an IDist who disagrees with the likes of Behe on how and where God intervened. He definitely believes random processes are capable of producing a lot more than Behe does. On the other hand, I don't know to what extent he thinks God interfered on the quantum level (his hypothesis). Perhaps God directed mutations that way, which would be almost indistinquishable from Behe's position. Quote And, you continue to make comments about "materialistic reductionism" which say to me that you have not changed your position at all. What about my comments have been incorrect? Quote This is so wrong on so many levels, it's hard to know where to begin. Which "linear paradigm" are you talking about that is "mine"? The one which is turtles all the way down, so far as causation events go. Quote Why can I not account for the existence of matter? Well, please do. Quote What must a god do to be "deserving" of the label and why is it necessary? A God must be the source of the universe and all existence. And that is necessary because if he can't, we need to find who/what can. Quote Do you even understand what it is you are talking about when you talk about things causing one another?  Who's talking about multiple uncaused causes to the universe? If God is not the cause of matter/energy, then it has another cause than God. But God is also uncaused. Therefore, we would have two very different items, both uncaused. I consider this impossible. Quote So, I can assume that you love all of yourself unconditionally?  You don't wish you were a little smarter or better looking or anything else?  What you wrote here is claptrap.  You've made an a priori commitment to a notion of a loving god, and now you can't imagine one that isn't loving, so you make poor arguments as to why it should be so. There is a difference between seeing lack of perfection in a being and rejection of that being or lack of support for that being. Even the Bible agrees. When Jesus speaks of the perfection of the Father, he gives the example that He sends his rain to the just and the unjust. Quote and then finish with a crude snipe at me, nice. This:    The perception of God is outside the range you are used to. was not a snipe at you. It is more or less the human condition. Quote Also, you have yet to demonstrate how you have the knowledge of the possible outcomes of the universe given god or no god in order to make the determination that a universe with a god is fundamentally different, let alone better. I'm saying they are mutually exclusive. If one is true, the other both isn't, and cannot be. Quote The insistence that it is one or the other {random evolution versus design] is called setting up a false dichotomy, but you wouldn't engage in logical fallacy, would you? Well, evidence that a system required design would be evidence against its random generation. Perhaps you are thinking of other alternatives than God vs NDE. One other alternative is interventionism, which thinks other beings, perhaps very old, perhaps even from a prior universe, or from a planet that got life going a few billion years ahead of ours, intervened here. I'm certainly open to other possibilities. Quote Who could have designed "certain features of the universe" or "brought matter into existence" if not god?  You arguments are so transparent that I'd be embarrassed to make them if I were you. Oh, well, if it is the universe itself we are speaking of, then I can't attribute it to any other than God. Why should I be embarrassed? I have never been embarrassed to say that in my view God is the primary reality. Quote Oh really?  How do you find "indirect evidence" for god through science?  Hint, you can't. This is an assumption on your part. Consciousness research is a possibility. Quantum mechanics/string theory is another. And I think there are more. In my view, reality is all of a piece. One continuum, from God to a twig. As we get deeper into reality, we should find evidence, and it is far more likely that the evidence will be indirect than direct, for the reason that we don't have instruments to measure spirit. At least not now. You say we 'can't' find scientific evidence for God, but if my view of reality is correct, it 'must' find evidence for God. Otherwise, science is fundamentally limited. So fundamentally limited that it can never get to to the bottom of our reality, more limited than I hope or can accept if I do not have to. Seven, Quote Avo, why did you use profanity? Sorry, it wasn't meant to come out that strong. By the way, I know a guy with two older brothers who's gay, and he's left-handed. How did that happen? Puck, Quote Intelligent Design cannot believe in a Deistic entity...front-loading is a Deistic idea....ID is a theistic idea.  If ID is Deistic...then it believes in evolution...which it doesnt I don't know about all that. Front-loading is a newish idea, but some ID folk are interested. But I do agree that it's hard to imagine a front-loaded flagellum. I find it hard to imagine a front-loaded cell. I think if there is front-loading, it was not just at the big bang, but at the start of life also. Perhaps the inanimate followed by the animate frontloading event. Quote If God doesnt exist....we could still have souls and reincarnation. Maybe. Quote but quit assigning your conceived God to a God that can be proposed by rational reasoning....its just absurd.  Your God is based on a lot more than rationalism... How so? Quote Quit using that tired old line about Darwinism being just as religious as ID. I do see parallels, and not just with religion. I see patterns in human thought and behavior, and those patterns often repeat themselves in different situations and times, and they also often repeat themselves on two opposite sides of an equation. That is probably why the extreme right and extreme left are often equally oppressive and violent.

Sanctum Posts: 88 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2006,19:50    Avocationist, I always like seeing that you have added a comment. They are very intriguing and well-thought out. One complaint - I know not everything is about me (giant ego notwithstanding) but you didn't just have the temerity to accuse me of left-handedness did you? Quote By the way, I know a guy with two older brothers who's gay, and he's left-handed. How did that happen?

Sanctum Posts: 88 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2006,19:53    Not that there's anything wrong with that. (did you catch that episode, Alan?)

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2006,20:54    Off-Topic. Quick question to Sanctum. Did you used to post as Ghost of Paley?

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2006,21:01    Quote In response to ID being deistic I don't know about all that. Front-loading is a newish idea, but some ID folk are interested. But I do agree that it's hard to imagine a front-loaded flagellum. I find it hard to imagine a front-loaded cell. I think if there is front-loading, it was not just at the big bang, but at the start of life also. Perhaps the inanimate followed by the animate frontloading event. Hmm...let me see if i can explain If you understand Deism, it claims that the Creator/Designer got it all setup and then allowed it to unfold in a planned way. If he allowed it to unfold, he allowed it to unfold following natural laws.  The natural, "stupid" laws would have created all of reality. ID suggests that God poked...and kept poking. OR, ID doesnt even deal with this stuff, and just notices design. So either ID is not an alternative for Evolution at all, and in fact may confirm evolution or ID claims that God kept poking...which is theism SO which one do you believe Avo? ID as an alternative? or ID as a theory that has nothing to do with Evolution? Quote If we find even one system that truly cannot be explained by random mutation, then evolution is in trouble. As for selecting one system, we must start somewhere, and focus on particular systems is the only way to go anyway, to gain the deepest understanding. I know I already responded to this post. I'm trying to figure out where I left off. Completely wrong First, random mutation can explain the flagellum...and all of the other "IC" systems... Your just not satisfied with the explanation....its isnt a case of Evolutionary Scientists being completely dumbfounded Second, if Evolutionary Theory cant currently explain something it doesnt mean that the theory is debunked... it may mean that theory doesnt apply to that particular example, or that the theory needs to be expanded This is a completely illogical statement. Quote If an arm is a partially evolved wing, then anything is anything. You almost got the point.   You like your biology in nice, neat, clean definitions... but biology isnt nice, neat, or clean Its vague, blurry, and doesnt apply itself well to definition Quote No, Henry, I will never submit to simply picking the least objectionable of two objectionable theories. Better to just hold out. Really? So your agnostic on this whole issue? As I see it you already picked a theory, a theory that you know has problems, and now you wont listen to people explain a rational reason to abandon your current belief. Quote Yes, Miller is an IDist who disagrees with the likes of Behe on how and where God intervened. He definitely believes random processes are capable of producing a lot more than Behe does. On the other hand, I don't know to what extent he thinks God interfered on the quantum level (his hypothesis). Perhaps God directed mutations that way, which would be almost indistinquishable from Behe's position. Go ask Behe Intelligent Design isnt religious. Intelligent Design claims that complexity due to a designer can be detected. Miller thinks that this idea is absurd. You would be more accurate to call Miller a confused Creationist rather than a confused IDist... You really are stretching good reasoning on this claim Quote but quit assigning your conceived God to a God that can be proposed by rational reasoning....its just absurd.  Your God is based on a lot more than rationalism... You have claimed several times that a reality with God is much better than a reality without God. But that is only true if your God is good and loving. What if God is mean and hateful? Then that universe is worse. There are rational arguments for God There are not any rational arguments for a Christian God..thats pure belief Quote If God is not the cause of matter/energy, then it has another cause than God. But God is also uncaused. Therefore, we would have two very different items, both uncaused. I consider this impossible. This is horrible reasoning, the reason you have 2 "original" causal occurences is because you cannot even imagine for a moment that God does not exist. If you are arguing for God because of a causation argument, then there is absolutely no proof of YOUR God.  Any original causal event would be your God.  He might be completely devoid of consciousness. Once again...this is horribly flawed reasoning mainly because you suppose that we must address this problem from your perspective.  You believe in God, so therefore there must be a God.  If something else started the Universe...then what was God doing?  Maybe He didnt exist? or doesnt? I dont know if you have noticed Avo, but a lot of people are beginning to get tired of this.  They can tell that your not truly being open-minded.  Your not even considering the alternative opinions to your own.  We are all wrong and you will always be right.  While strong conviction is admirable, blindly following a belief is just foolish. Ive told more Creationists than you can even imagine the same thing.  Creationism is a more rational and honest belief than ID.  ID is rubbish.  At least creationism has something to stand on...the bible. ID is a phantom of a thing. Everyone from the Creationist to the confused philosopher can support ID.  It has no clear "theory"...just something about design.  Behe and Dembski dont bother explaining...that would be too much trouble. I have yet to hear a real reason that ID opposes evolution. At the very worst ID is suggesting that a more complex process(not God) is involved and at the very best it is confirming evolution.  It only refutes evolution because its proponents want to refute evolution. Go back to being a creationist...we will all respect you much much more

Sanctum Posts: 88 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2006,22:09    Quick reply to Stephen Elliot. No sir, I did not.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2006,22:17    Quote Why is it a tautology, and why is a tautology always wrong? Because he is taking it for granted that a biological complex that performs a specific function is purposeful, which implies intention. And then he says that this implies intelligence, ie 'a purposeful arrangement of parts proves that the parts were arranged purposefully'. It's not wrong, it just doesn't go any way to proving his point. Quote Frankly, I don't know what he means when he says that life is an axiom and unsolvable within science. Me neither. Quote But it is life that it is well arranged for. It's looking like the whole inanimate world lends support to the animate world. Maybe my physics is lacking but I don't see how that in any way is scientific proof that it was set up by an intelligent force, and even if it is that does not have any bearing on evolution. If fundemental laws are found that affect in some part how evolution has played out, this will not prove the ID claim that an intelligence actively interferes with evolution.

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,02:45    We'll get to the bottom of it some day, Stephen. Come on, Sanctum, own up. You know you want to. A left-handed lesbian can't be all bad, a few days in rehab will sort most things.

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,03:15    Quote (avocationist @ Mar. 27 2006,01:13) Yes, I have come to see from you and others that NDE is more accepting of theism than I had thought. I should have prefaced my comment with "As you have pointed out..." But, you didn't, did you?  No, you tried to act as if it were YOUR argument and that you would somehow win a point against me in debate by using it.  Considering it was not YOUR argument from the beginning, I think that is rather dishonest of you. Quote Yes, Miller is an IDist who disagrees with the likes of Behe on how and where God intervened. He definitely believes random processes are capable of producing a lot more than Behe does. On the other hand, I don't know to what extent he thinks God interfered on the quantum level (his hypothesis). Perhaps God directed mutations that way, which would be almost indistinquishable from Behe's position. Ugh. Go tell Miller he's an IDist.  See what he says. Quote What about my comments have been incorrect? I wasn't pointing out where you were incorrect, but where you were inconsistent.  You admit that NDE is not in conflict with theism, then equate it to atheism.  It makes me think you are simply paying lip service and playing word games. Quote The one which is turtles all the way down, so far as causation events go. Who said anything about turtles?  You are much closer to that than I am, insisting that things have a cause and all. Quote Well, please do. Matter is.  End of story.  There is no logical need for a cause, and there is no scientific way of finding the cause that you think exists.  How do YOU account for matter?  You say, "Goddidit," which is completely scientifically useless. Quote A God must be the source of the universe and all existence. And that is necessary because if he can't, we need to find who/what can. Says who (besides you?)  Why must god be the source of the universe?  Why can't god simply be an observer that has the power to interfere and does or does not?  Oh yeah, it's because you've already made your a priori assumptions about what god is and isn't. Quote If God is not the cause of matter/energy, then it has another cause than God. But God is also uncaused. Therefore, we would have two very different items, both uncaused. I consider this impossible. The whole "everything must have a cause" argument is pretty bad.  But, I have to wonder why two uncaused items is not possible.  Again, I have to conclude it is due to your limited assumptions of who/what god is. Quote There is a difference between seeing lack of perfection in a being and rejection of that being or lack of support for that being. Even the Bible agrees. When Jesus speaks of the perfection of the Father, he gives the example that He sends his rain to the just and the unjust. Thank you for proving my point.  Your reversal from the position that god is all about love is nice. Quote This:    The perception of God is outside the range you are used to. was not a snipe at you. It is more or less the human condition. I don't believe you.  You are saying that I am either sub-human or you are super-human.  Either way, I am less than you. Quote I'm saying they are mutually exclusive. If one is true, the other both isn't, and cannot be. Are those goal posts heavy? Quote Well, evidence that a system required design would be evidence against its random generation. Perhaps you are thinking of other alternatives than God vs NDE. One other alternative is interventionism, which thinks other beings, perhaps very old, perhaps even from a prior universe, or from a planet that got life going a few billion years ahead of ours, intervened here. I'm certainly open to other possibilities. No, what you are describing is the dichotomy of design or not design.  That is quite different from the one that you have tried to set up with NDE vs. design.  In order to prove design by disproving NDE, one would also have to disprove all "not design" scenarios.  Considering that there is no positive evidence for design, this is the route most often taken.  NDE vs. design, however, is a false dichotomy. Quote Oh, well, if it is the universe itself we are speaking of, then I can't attribute it to any other than God. Why should I be embarrassed? I have never been embarrassed to say that in my view God is the primary reality. If I were you, I'd be embarrassed to try to pass this off as non-religio/philosophical and scientific.  You admit that the designer must be god, but then try to say it is scientific in the same breath.  It's so incredibly transparent that only the true believers won't be able to see it.  I'd be embarrassed to be making such bad arguments. Quote This is an assumption on your part. What, that we can't prove god scientifically?  It is an assumption, but an a posteriori one, which I feel justified in making.  If we were to make leaps in the scientific field that make it possible to study "god" then I would reconsider.  Until then, I will maintain that it's not possible.  Of course, the whole idea is a little contradictory on its face.  Science is studying that which makes the world understandable.  The existence of something that can completely alter existence or violate any physical law seems completely contradictory to what science is.  But, hey, keep your pipe dream if you want, just don't act like it's a reality at present time. Quote Consciousness research is a possibility. Quantum mechanics/string theory is another. And I think there are more. In my view, reality is all of a piece. One continuum, from God to a twig. As we get deeper into reality, we should find evidence, and it is far more likely that the evidence will be indirect than direct, for the reason that we don't have instruments to measure spirit. At least not now. You say we 'can't' find scientific evidence for God, but if my view of reality is correct, it 'must' find evidence for God. Otherwise, science is fundamentally limited. So fundamentally limited that it can never get to to the bottom of our reality, more limited than I hope or can accept if I do not have to. But, we don't have anything right now, hence ID is not science.  When IDists figure out how to measure "spirit" I'll change my mind.  Until then, they have to actually bring something to the table, and none of their pontifications or whining about being "unfairly excluded (even though they do no actual scientific experimentation)" is just not going to cut it. Oh, and science is limited, that's part of what makes it work.  If we simply accepted "goddidit" as a potential explanation for everything, we wouldn't get anywhere.

Jay Ray Posts: 92 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,03:16    Quote life is an axiom and unsolvable within science. I think he's referring to Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.  If you're big on math or logic, this theorem probably has influenced you during your studies.  I've never studied the formal systems of either math or logic, so look this guy up if you want to be sure I'm not talking out of my dorsal meatus. From what I understand of it, the incompleteness theorem says that in any formal, structured system of logic or rules or what have you, there are true things about that system that cannot be derived from the rules of the system itself. Or to put it another way, the formal system must make some assumptions (axioms) going in that are unproved by the system itself.  It needs input from outside the system to get it going at all.   In this way, Godel formalized what most of us rubes refer to as "gaps in the theory". So the originating quote extends the idea out from math and logic to biology.  It's making the claim that in the "formal system" of evolutionary biology, life itself is just such an axiom. I'm not sure why Avo would use this quote if she didn't understand it.  But at least at first glance, it seems to support her recurring claim that, "You can't explain abiogenesis.  You can't explain the origin of the universe."  In so far as we can consider biological evolution or the big bang a "formal system", Godel's theorem seems to hold to the same degree. A claim I agree with, on the whole, although I also say that we are working on figuring it out and expect we shall do so in a few generations. The part I disagree with in this statement is that creationists of all stripes posit GOD, along with a whole host of this god's presumed qualities, as the answer to those gaps.  According to them, god needs no beginning axioms.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,05:42    Quote If we find even one system that truly cannot be explained by random mutation, then evolution is in trouble. As for selecting one system, we must start somewhere... And how do we rigorously prove that system X "cannot be explained by random mutation"?  (And, bear in mind, these days biologists recognize a lot of different DNA modifications where you somewhat misleadingly (or perhaps "misled-ly") write "random mutation": substitutions, duplications, insertions, transpositions, acquisition of plasmids...)   Here's the thing. If you really could find prove that system X could not possibly have evolved, then yes: then we would be in the market for an alternative explanation. But if your evidence is just your opinion, or Behe's opinion, that it seems improbable, or that there are lots of biological systems whose evolution has not (and  never will be - there being a limit to resources available for research) explained, step by step, back to the origin of life - actual students of the field are not  impressed. Quote Well, a lot of people are not satisfied to simply decide to believe in evolution because the evidence that paleontolgoy points to is unacceptable. Who are those people? Specifically. Are they the ones who have seriously studied the evidence, or are they the usual gang of creationists precommitted to rejecting evolution? -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,13:08    Quote Who are those people? Specifically. Are they the ones who have seriously studied the evidence, or are they the usual gang of creationists precommitted to rejecting evolution? Why do you even bother asking this question Russ? Here is the answer "I think that several people reject Darwinism because of actual flaws with the theory, the fact that they have almost all turned to creationism in response is mere coincidence" Then you will say: "What flaws?" Then if your lucky, Avo will list some: "List of of logically unsound, or thoroughly debunked 'flaws'" We will say: "Those are not actually flaws, those are either misunderstanding or completely irrelevant" Avo will say: "I dismiss your rebuttals, you have not debunked my 'flaws' enough for me, therefore they are not debunked" You know where this is going..... Its only on a rare day that you meet a closeminded person who admits that they are closeminded

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2006,13:25    Quote Why do you even bother asking this question Russ? Actually, I'm looking for specific names and references. It's my observation that when you try to nail down creationist rhetoric to specifics, in fact it never gets more specific than "a lot of people say..." or a   Mike "who the #### is he?" Gene cut'n'paste bombardment. Can't hurt to ask. Who knows? Maybe I'll be surprised. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,07:26    Santum, I wasn't accusing you of left-handedness, more's the pity, since I consider it a compliment. It was a response to whoever originally posted the research that as the number of older brothers increase, a boy's chances of being gay increase, but that if he is left-handed it doesn't apply. Puck, Quote If he allowed it to unfold, he allowed it to unfold following natural laws.  The natural, "stupid" laws would have created all of reality. ID suggests that God poked...and kept poking. OR, ID doesnt even deal with this stuff, and just notices design.  OK, I think I see what you are saying. Maybe I am wrong but I don't really think ID insists upon evidence of poking. Evidence of design might lead a lot of people to assume that there was poking. But all ID really says is that we can see evidence for design. It doesn't really address who or how, by what sort of process. And just because they may say that the flagellum evidences design does not mean the design comes in discrete packets of poking. It simply means that certain systems are clear examples that let us know we are not dealing with an undesigned process. Quote So either ID is not an alternative for Evolution at all, and in fact may confirm evolution or ID claims that God kept poking...which is theism SO which one do you believe Avo? ID as an alternative? or ID as a theory that has nothing to do with Evolution? I think ID may in the end confirm a kind of evolution, but not the one Dawkins believes in. The thing is, and this goes to some other commentors as well (GCT), we've got a dividing line going on and it is not in the same place on this website as it is over at UD. The ID dividing line, and mine, is intelligent, purposive input or not.  That's it. So I put atheism on one side of the line and deism, theism, creationism, pantheism on the other. I'm not saying there is no legitimate arguments between those interpretations. Quote First, random mutation can explain the flagellum...and all of the other "IC" systems... Premature. Quote Second, if Evolutionary Theory cant currently explain something it doesnt mean that the theory is debunked... it may mean that theory doesnt apply to that particular example, or that the theory needs to be expanded. That is fair enough, but I just can't help remembering when I asked a Christian at work what would happen to her belief in the Christ story if she found out that in the Mediteranian world of that time there were other gods with almost identical life stories as Jesus and which preceded his life by a couple of centuries. She said nothing would happen because she has faith. Quote You almost got the point.   Yeah, but you didn't. Point being, statements like that an arm is already a proto-wing just means anything goes, with enough imagination. Quote You would be more accurate to call Miller a confused Creationist rather than a confused IDist... Yes, that works as well. Miller believes in ID (intelligent interference happened), however, he just thinks it is undetectable. So the argument is about whether God's interference is detectable, not whether it happened. So Miller thinks ID is true, but unprovable. And I just have a problem with that defeatist attitude toward reality. If something is true, I cannot say that it will be forever unprovable. I certainly see no reason to insist upon it. Quote What if God is mean and hateful? You mean like Jehovah? Quote There are not any rational arguments for a Christian God..thats pure belief I agree, but who is the christian God. They say contradictory things. Some are beter than others. Quote the reason you have 2 "original" causal occurences is because you cannot even imagine for a moment that God does not exist. If you are arguing for God because of a causation argument, then there is absolutely no proof of YOUR God.  Any original causal event would be your God.  He might be completely devoid of consciousness. I'm not following your argument. It is true I cannot imagine that God doesn't exist, any more than I can imagine magic. The point is that I used to be able to and now I can't. Once you see deeper into a situation, you can't unsee it. I am not sure consciousness of the personal variety is required, at least initially. Quote I dont know if you have noticed Avo, but a lot of people are beginning to get tired of this.  They can tell that your not truly being open-minded.  Your not even considering the alternative opinions to your own.   I'm sorry you think this, Puck. It looks like projection to me.  I consider very seriously other people's opinions all the time and I have revised my own understandings far more than most people have, and will continue to do so. As to people getting tired, you have said such things several times now. I feel scolded. But if anyone is tired, they need not participate. Isn't that right? Quote Creationism is a more rational and honest belief than ID.  ID is rubbish.  At least creationism has something to stand on...the bible. Oh, my heavens. The Bible? I just don't know what to say. To me, the inability to examine the Bible and see it for what it is could be a kind of litmus test for rationality. And open mindedness. Quote Go back to being a creationist...we will all respect you much much more This is annoying and uncalled for. I was never a creationist. When I was a Christian, I knew that I had not examined the question of evolution, and took very little position on the matter. Chris, Quote Because he is taking it for granted that a biological complex that performs a specific function is purposeful, which implies intention. And then he says that this implies intelligence, ie 'a purposeful arrangement of parts proves that the parts were arranged purposefully'. It's not wrong, it just doesn't go any way to proving his point. OK, and so Behe thinks it does. He thinks that what he sees is too unlikely to have gotten itself together without help. I find the arguments from information and probability pretty strong. But you've read the same ones. GCT, The situation is pretty hopeless. No matter how many times I make the same point, you claim I am dishonest, inconsistent, a word twister and idea stealer. I'll be brief. On Miller, see above. Quote You admit that NDE is not in conflict with theism, then equate it to atheism.   In my understanding of "pure" NDE, which you and others say is wrong, it does conflict with theism. Now, you are telling me that NDE includes both a God who set it up or a universe with no God. But that is not really one theory. As I explained above. Quote Who said anything about turtles?  You are much closer to that than I am, insisting that things have a cause and all. The problem is that we must understand the need for acausality, which defies our rational minds. Quote Matter is.  End of story. Unacceptable. Inadequate. Unless matter is God. About God, the simplest true statement is this:  God is. Quote There is no logical need for a cause, and there is no scientific way of finding the cause that you think exists.  How do YOU account for matter?  You say, "Goddidit," which is completely scientifically useless. Matter arises from God, either automatically, or as a choice. Quote Why must god be the source of the universe?  Why can't god simply be an observer that has the power to interfere and does or does not?  Oh yeah, it's because you've already made your a priori assumptions about what god is and isn't. You need to really think about this. Quote There is a difference between seeing lack of perfection in a being and rejection of that being or lack of support for that being. Even the Bible agrees. When Jesus speaks of the perfection of the Father, he gives the example that He sends his rain to the just and the unjust. Thank you for proving my point.  Your reversal from the position that god is all about love is nice. What reversal? I said God does not reject or fail to support all beings, whether they are right or wrong, and that this does not conflict with the need to attain perfection and lose imperfection. Quote This:    The perception of God is outside the range you are used to. was not a snipe at you. It is more or less the human condition. ************************* I don't believe you.  You are saying that I am either sub-human or you are super-human.  Either way, I am less than you. I'm saying that I have spend many years working on a better understanding of the nature of God, and that I had a significant breakthrough at some point, in my mid thirties. The instrinsic worth of every human being is exactly the same. Quote I'm saying they are mutually exclusive. If one is true, the other both isn't, and cannot be. ***************** Are those goal posts heavy? What are you talking about? I have made the same point over and over. Quote NDE vs. design, however, is a false dichotomy. So this is the same definition problem. Over at the design sites, this is precisely the dichotomy they are bucking. Quote If I were you, I'd be embarrassed to try to pass this off as non-religio/philosophical and scientific. My discussion about God is philosophical. I don't think such ideas are antiscientific, but I am not trying to pass off my ideas as science. Quote You admit that the designer must be god, but then try to say it is scientific in the same breath. The author of the universe and life is God. I am not convinced about who wrote the DNA code. Reality is reality. That is what I can't seem to get across. You have just stated above that God and science are not to be spoken in the same breath. Look, if there is a God, IF--- then it does not conflict with science. It cannot. Quote Science is studying that which makes the world understandable.  The existence of something that can completely alter existence or violate any physical law seems completely contradictory to what science is. Do you realize that if God exists that it is already true? The existence of God may by realized as true in the future by particular minds, but if God is true, it is true now and was true all along. Therefore, it is silly to worry that the existence of God will make existence incoherent. And I do not think God does or can violate physical laws! It is a contradiction. Quote Oh, and science is limited, that's part of what makes it work.  If we simply accepted "goddidit" as a potential explanation for everything, we wouldn't get anywhere. Take that whole phrase, which is a useless meme someone fed you, and throw it in the trash. And read Bhodidharma. I prescribe Buddhism for you.

GCT Posts: 1001 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,07:54    Quote (avocationist @ Mar. 30 2006,13:26) The thing is, and this goes to some other commentors as well (GCT), we've got a dividing line going on and it is not in the same place on this website as it is over at UD. The ID dividing line, and mine, is intelligent, purposive input or not.  That's it. So I put atheism on one side of the line and deism, theism, creationism, pantheism on the other. I'm glad to hear that you are finally admitting that ID is nothing more than an attack on atheism.  See, science doesn't make claims that put atheists on one side and all others on the other, that's religion's job.  Thank you for so clearly pointing out that ID is just a religious argument. Quote In my understanding of "pure" NDE, which you and others say is wrong, it does conflict with theism. Now, you are telling me that NDE includes both a God who set it up or a universe with no God. But that is not really one theory. As I explained above. When corrected about your misconceptions over NDE, you continue to hold to them.  Now, who was being open-minded? Also, note that I do NOT say "NDE includes both a God who set it up or a universe with no God."  I say that NDE is neutral on the subject, so one is free to posit a god in the process or not.  ID can not say the same. Quote The problem is that we must understand the need for acausality, which defies our rational minds. No, positing an irrational answer to a question defies our rational minds. Quote Unacceptable. Inadequate. Unless matter is God. About God, the simplest true statement is this:  God is. Nice apologetics, and utterly useless for science.  Thanks for playing though. Quote Matter arises from God, either automatically, or as a choice. Again, completely useless for science.  "Goddidit" will never be scientific or useful. Quote You need to really think about this. No, you need to stop making limitations on the possibilities based on your limited imagination. Quote What reversal? I said God does not reject or fail to support all beings, whether they are right or wrong, and that this does not conflict with the need to attain perfection and lose imperfection. Your reversal on "god is love".  Thank you, come again. Quote I'm saying that I have spend many years working on a better understanding of the nature of God, and that I had a significant breakthrough at some point, in my mid thirties. The instrinsic worth of every human being is exactly the same. And, now you are denigrating my experiences.  I have spent many years working on a better understanding of the nature of god too and found it completely lacking.  The better understanding that I have come to is that there is no god.  But, I don't go around trying to force my opinion on others as if it were science. Quote What are you talking about? I have made the same point over and over. Really?  I could have sworn that you said a universe with a god would be better or even different that a universe without.  Now you've been reduced to the dichotomy that either there is a god or there isn't.  It's easy to gain debate points when you try to present things that I've already agreed with as contentious points in your favor.  And, you wonder why I think you are dishonest. Quote So this is the same definition problem. Over at the design sites, this is precisely the dichotomy they are bucking. Yes, and you and your ID pals are on the wrong end of it.  Over on the DI's blog where they complain about how people get the definition of ID wrong all the time in the media, they never mention the fact that they don't use the correct definition of evolution.  I wonder why that is.  Maybe because if they can pass evolution off as atheistic, then they can gain more points with the majority of Americans who are distrustful of atheists.  (Side point: any of that majority should come down to sites like this and see how you and your ID ilk argue and how I argue and see who is the one they should distrust.  I've been nothing but honest.  You, I'm not so sure can claim that.) Quote My discussion about God is philosophical. I don't think such ideas are antiscientific, but I am not trying to pass off my ideas as science. Good, then you finally agree that ID is not science. Quote The author of the universe and life is God. I am not convinced about who wrote the DNA code. Reality is reality. That is what I can't seem to get across. You have just stated above that God and science are not to be spoken in the same breath. Look, if there is a God, IF--- then it does not conflict with science. It cannot. That's right, and if there isn't a god?  It still can't conflict with science.  Why?  Because science does not deal with the supernatural.  ID necessarily needs god, and therefore isn't science.  Thank you for proving my point once again.  You're making this easy. Quote Do you realize that if God exists that it is already true? The existence of God may by realized as true in the future by particular minds, but if God is true, it is true now and was true all along. Therefore, it is silly to worry that the existence of God will make existence incoherent. And I do not think God does or can violate physical laws! It is a contradiction. Yet, now you seem to be saying that whether we have a god or not, the universe would not change.  Hmmm, totally different from what you were saying before.  Either way, if you don't think god can violate physical law, then you don't have an omnipotent god.  Also, if god only operates through physical law, how will you discern that god is actually operating and not just the physical laws themselves?  Or, more accurately, how will science do this, especially without using your a priori assumption of god?  Answer, it can't and it won't.  Once again, thanks for playing. Quote Take that whole phrase, which is a useless meme someone fed you, and throw it in the trash. So, you think "goddidit" is a good way for science to conduct business?  Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.  Yes, I'm laughing at what you just said. Quote And read Bhodidharma. I prescribe Buddhism for you. I'm fine, thanks.  I can take care of my own philosophical musings, and I am quite able to keep them out of science and not force them on others, which is more than I can say for you and your ID pals. Oh, and by the way, check and mate.

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,10:20    Quote I don't really think ID insists upon evidence of poking. Quote ID says it can be shown that beyond reasonable doubt that some systems could not have brung themselves into existence. Quote just because they may say that the flagellum evidences design does not mean the design comes in discrete packets of poking. It simply means that certain systems are clear examples that let us know we are not dealing with an undesigned process. Ok...the entire point of the flagellum "case" is one of poking.  The entire concept of IC insists poking was necessary. ID without poking:  pointing to the exactness of the physical laws.. Every time you hear reference to IC...the point is that IC systems cannot have arisen without interference from an intelligent agent...AKA poking Quote That is fair enough, but I just can't help remembering when I asked a Christian at work what would happen to her belief in the Christ story if she found out that in the Mediteranian world of that time there were other gods with almost identical life stories as Jesus and which preceded his life by a couple of centuries. But, if you suggested to a scientist that his theory was flawed...and proposed an alternative that was a better explanation...he would alter his view... i.e.  Before the whole Darwin revolution most scientists were strict creationists(not scientific creationists, they thought the origin of species was outside the realm of science)....they all changed their minds because Darwin and Geologists proposed  natural, accurate explanations for the natural history of the world. Quote Miller believes in ID (intelligent interference happened), however, he just thinks it is undetectable. So the argument is about whether God's interference is detectable, not whether it happened. So Miller thinks ID is true, but unprovable. but Quote ID is the science of detecting and proving Design So...Miller may believe that the world is designed.... but he doesnt believe in ID...which is they science of detectable and proveable design.... He doesnt believe either parts of that statement....so he is not a confused IDist. You really seem to be missing this.... ID vs Naturalistic Science is not a case of design vs. non-design.  It is a case of detectable design vs undetectable design.  If something is undetectable, science obviously cannot advocate its existence...since the scientific endeavor is based around detectability. Quote Yeah, but you didn't. Point being, statements like that an arm is already a proto-wing just means anything goes, with enough imagination. Not really. When we compare the wings of mammals, dinosaurs, and birds we discover that they are all based on "arms"(actually hands)...they all, however, developed in different ways. When does a hand become a dolphin's flipper? They both have fingers, and the same bone structure that we find in most mammals....did it happen when the skin fused together? Did it happen when they lost the ability to move the fingers independently.... You think of things in definitive terms: flipper, hand, wing but when you really get down to it, they are incredibly similiar....we all know that a flipper helps you swim, a hand helps you walk/grab, and a wing helps you fly... but you swim with your hands...so are your hands flippers? Quote It is true I cannot imagine that God doesn't exist, any more than I can imagine magic. The point is that I used to be able to and now I can't. You also cannot see the possibility of random mutation.... But, clearly this is based on faith.  If it wasnt based on faith, you would be able to consider any possibility. I can imagine a world without light, without gravity, and without God....but I still inherently know that all of those things exist in my world....but i can at least conceptionalize a world without. Quote I was never a creationist. When I was a Christian, I knew that I had not examined the question of evolution, and took very little position on the matter. Sorry...i didnt mean to offend you.  I didnt mean Creationist in the typical "literal" bible sense...i meant the belief that God created us...specially...at some point If that was never your belief, then i apologize......

Sanctum Posts: 88 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,10:36    Quote Santum, I wasn't accusing you of left-handedness, more's the pity, since I consider it a compliment. It was a response to whoever originally posted the research that as the number of older brothers increase, a boy's chances of being gay increase, but that if he is left-handed it doesn't apply. As you seem earnest I should tell you that I knew that and was only having fun. I do want to clarify, however, that I am, and always have been, a complete righty. But I have many left-handed friends.[QUOTE][/QUOTE]

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,11:20    Quote (Jay Ray @ Mar. 27 2006,09:16) Quote life is an axiom and unsolvable within science. I think he's referring to Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.  If you're big on math or logic, this theorem probably has influenced you during your studies.  I've never studied the formal systems of either math or logic, so look this guy up if you want to be sure I'm not talking out of my dorsal meatus. From what I understand of it, the incompleteness theorem says that in any formal, structured system of logic or rules or what have you, there are true things about that system that cannot be derived from the rules of the system itself. Or to put it another way, the formal system must make some assumptions (axioms) going in that are unproved by the system itself.  It needs input from outside the system to get it going at all.   In this way, Godel formalized what most of us rubes refer to as "gaps in the theory". So the originating quote extends the idea out from math and logic to biology.  It's making the claim that in the "formal system" of evolutionary biology, life itself is just such an axiom. I'm not sure why Avo would use this quote if she didn't understand it.  But at least at first glance, it seems to support her recurring claim that, "You can't explain abiogenesis.  You can't explain the origin of the universe."  In so far as we can consider biological evolution or the big bang a "formal system", Godel's theorem seems to hold to the same degree. A claim I agree with, on the whole, although I also say that we are working on figuring it out and expect we shall do so in a few generations. The part I disagree with in this statement is that creationists of all stripes posit GOD, along with a whole host of this god's presumed qualities, as the answer to those gaps.  According to them, god needs no beginning axioms. re Goedel- I used to think that too, then I read the wikipedia entry.  As far as I understand it, Goedels incompletenmess theorem only holds true withing certain narrow areas of mathematics, not in all formal systems of logic.   Thus, if you want to use it about the universe, your going to have to demonstrate, logcally and mathematically, how the universe is like one of these partical areas of maths.  Given that we dont know nearly everything about the total universe, I can safely say that anyone appealing to Goedel to bolster their ignorance can be ignored.

Jay Ray Posts: 92 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,16:26    Guthrie, I agree, to a point.  I would not say that our understanding of the universe comprises a "formal system".  I wonder if our knowledge can ever reach a critical mass to be considered logically complete in the strictly formal sense that Godel's proof requires.  (How do you make umlauts? )   Yet I do think there is something to Godel's theorem WRT scientific theories, however incomplete they may be from case to case.  We make assumptions about an assortment of things when forming any of them.  The various symmetries, for instance.  None of them are proved by what we observe as far as I know.  (We assume they are true going in, and to be sure, those that we can test for are true to the best of our knowledge.)  And since they make the rest of our intricate knowledge possible in the first place, this would seem like an example of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem in science.  Maybe I'm painting Godel with too broad a brush. Evolution doesn't require a naturalistic OOL as an assumption, so if that's the guy's argument, he is wrong.  Evo works whether or not you believe in a "poof" event or if the life arose via stochastic sticky laws, does it not?  So perhaps you're right.  It is only when we talk about abiogenesis specifically that the theory is guided by the assumptions.   I will add this.  Naturalistic assumptions about abiogenesis have provided us with an infinitude of data when compared to a poof event.  So at least in science, I put my money on what seems to be working.  I'd rather stumble drunk toward the truth than be locked in a holding tank and believe I'm in paradise.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,05:30    Re "How do you make umlauts?" By copy/paste from a page that already has the one ya want. Henry

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,05:43    Chris, Quote What I mean is that saying the particular path of mutations that led to us is very improbable is fair enough, in the same way that saying that the chance of everyone who has ever won the lottery winning in that order is also very improbable. But as we know, the chances of repeating any sequence is very low, and yet is 100% guaranteed to unfold randomly. But the pattern to the throwing of dice is meaningless and incapable of accomplishing anything, so far as we can see. So I don't think the two are comparable at all. No matter how many times we run the lottery, there isn't any importance to who wins in what order. It doesn't build anything. Quote For each mutation that led to the development of the falgellum in a particular bacteria, there were millions that didn't in the same generation. Dembski does not model evolution as a branching and pruning process, which is what it is. I don't know about Dembski, but it is hard to see how this idea of pruning could work to create billions of highly ordered and complex systems, or IC systems in which it is very hard to see how many small steps could have each been selected as positive when it does not appear that each one could have been positive. You know the Dawkins experiment about "Methinks it is like a weasel"? There are some good arguments against it.   Quote Because he is taking it for granted that a biological complex that performs a specific function is purposeful, which implies intention. And then he says that this implies intelligence, ie 'a purposeful arrangement of parts proves that the parts were arranged purposefully'. Well, perhaps different people are able to accept suppositions that others can't. But the more we find out about biology, the more a designer hypothesis seems the less improbable of the two. After all, the universe most likely has existed forever in some form or another, and we are here, aren't we? Why should we be the only intelligence. I certainly have an incredulity problem. Quote (cosmological and chemical fine tuning) Maybe my physics is lacking but I don't see how that in any way is scientific proof that it was set up by an intelligent force, and even if it is that does not have any bearing on evolution. If fundemental laws are found that affect in some part how evolution has played out, this will not prove the ID claim that an intelligence actively interferes with evolution. Maybe not active interference, but it certainly ups the likelihood of the pre-existence of consciousness. GCT, I acquiesce to all your accusations. But I am curious. What is your gender? Jay Ray, I think you may be right, he was using Godel's theorem. As to why I posted it without understanding it, that is because it was intriguing and interesting. No, I am not comfortable with a lot of math, or much formal logic either. Quote The part I disagree with in this statement is that creationists of all stripes posit GOD, along with a whole host of this god's presumed qualities, as the answer to those gaps.  According to them, god needs no beginning axioms. Do you think God needs beginning axioms? What might they be? How can an axiom precede the existence of anything at all? And how can we speak of preceding in a state of timeless eternity? Russell, Quote And how do we rigorously prove that system X "cannot be explained by random mutation"?  (And, bear in mind, these days biologists recognize a lot of different DNA modifications where you somewhat misleadingly (or perhaps "misled-ly") write "random mutation": substitutions, duplications, insertions, transpositions, acquisition of plasmids...)   So all those are nonrandom? So the ability to intelligently and purposefully turn on mutation events evolved randomly? Quote Here's the thing. If you really could find prove that system X could not possibly have evolved, then yes: then we would be in the market for an alternative explanation. But if your evidence is just your opinion, or Behe's opinion, that it seems improbable, or that there are lots of biological systems whose evolution has not (and  never will be - there being a limit to resources available for research) explained, step by step, back to the origin of life - actual students of the field are not impressed. It cannot be retraced I guess, but there needs to be plausible ideas for how these systems could have evolved. Quote Well, a lot of people are not satisfied to simply decide to believe in evolution because the evidence that paleontolgoy points to is unacceptable. Who are those people? Specifically. Are they the ones who have seriously studied the evidence, or are they the usual gang of creationists precommitted to rejecting evolution? At one point I kept a list of paleontologists who tried to find some kind of saltation theory that could somehow coincide with a belief in evolution. As to whether these and the many others were objective in their search for truth, we will probably not agree. But it is silly to present this argument, because said lack of objectivity and precommitments are found on all sides. Your typing of creationists is right in so far as biblical literalists go, but that is by no means all religious people.   Puck, Quote "I think that several people reject Darwinism because of actual flaws with the theory, the fact that they have almost all turned to creationism in response is mere coincidence" Tell me how many alternatives you see. If we suppose that some people actually see flaws in the theory, wouldn't that increase the likelihood the world was created? Is that so illogical? As to flaws. Homology. Quote Actually, I'm looking for specific names and references. It's my observation that when you try to nail down creationist rhetoric to specifics, in fact it never gets more specific than "a lot of people say..." or a   Mike "who the #### is he?" Gene cut'n'paste bombardment. Can't hurt to ask. Who knows? Maybe I'll be surprised. Are you saying that I couldn't come up with a list if I were willing to spend the time on your homework assignment? Are you saying I couldn't come up with names and references of people who find problems with paleontology and other aspects of NDE? I find this useless. I don't have endless time. Who is Mike Gene? Mike Gene for some reason finds it necessary to protect his identity. Why do you find my cut and paste so offensive? Mike Gene's qualifications are irrelevant. He may be an 8th grade dropout like me who reads in his spare time. Are you planning to bring him before the hiring board of your institution? If not, then perhaps you can give us a reasoned response to the parts I cut and paste because they are fascinating, and I spent many hours reading what he has to say about the flagellum, and I spent a good deal of time finding what I thought the most interesting, and readable, portions with which to whet your appetite. I can only imagine the hours it took to put that huge essay together. It is far, far more advanced that what Behe presented in Black Box. So far all you've done is mock his credentials and my cut and paste. You strongly urged me to get some specific arguments, but you don't really want them. You don't really want to look, do you? It's just all about tossing insults. And who has the right credentials to toss those insults.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,06:08    Quote Are you saying I couldn't come up with names and references of people who find problems with paleontology and other aspects of NDE? That's  exactly what I'm saying. At least not credible (i.e. published in peer-reviewed professional journals) people, with objections that have anything to do with the issues you raise. Quote I find this useless. I don't have endless time. Yeah. Me too. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,06:24    Quote As you seem earnest I should tell you that I knew that and was only having fun. Yeah, I knew you were having fun, but I thought you were also perplexed about the left-handedness comment.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,06:53    Quote So far all you've done is mock his credentials and my cut and paste.   Did I mock "Mike Gene's" credentials? Please quote me. For all I know,  s/he's a brilliant something-ologist with three PhD's. What I was trying to point out is that, with no shortage of experts on bacterial flagella to choose from, with research records, and lots of evidence that they have not only thought about what they're writing, but have subjected their ideas to professional scrutiny, it seems unwise to rely on someone who won't even tell you his name, let alone why you should take his word for anything. Quote You strongly urged me to get some specific arguments, but you don't really want them. You don't really want to look, do you? It's just all about tossing insults. And who has the right credentials to toss those insults I am genuinely puzzled by this. What evidence do you have about what I "really want"?  I could be wrong, but I've always thought of myself as being unusually slow to "toss insults". Again, any specific instances you can cite? Last time, you accused me of calling Spetner (or someone) "malicious", I challenged you to find the quote. You never did. Of course, you never retracted the accusation - you just said you didn't "have time"  to track it down, or some such. Well, I'm suggesting that it's the same story with your list of Darwin-doubting paleontologists, and much of your other rather tenuous intimations of supporting data. I'm suggesting that, when we do take the trouble to track these things down, it always plays out just like the Spetner thing did: your trusting Some Guy's argument, because he agrees with you, rather than agreeing with Some Guy, because he's actually made a compelling case. BTW - are we still waiting for Spetner to get back you on why he screwed up, and what steps he's taking to set the record straight? -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Jay Ray Posts: 92 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,13:41    Quote Do you think God needs beginning axioms? Of course I do.  God is man's creation, not the other way around.   Quote What might they be? If we paint Godel's Theorem with the same broad brush that Yockey did with biology, the "formal system" of any theology is built upon axioms centered around human curiosity and human fear.  We have a powerful urge to know things.  Understanding how the world works is helpful survival behavior.  In pre-scientific eras, the freakiest stuff around were those things that could potentially kill us.  We had very little information that could explain earthquakes, volcanos, lightning bolts, horrible diseases.  Solar eclipses, while not inherently deadly, were just spooky to a lot of people.  (Heck, they still might be today if you happen not to be in the know.)  Conversely, we knew next to nothing about what made flowers grow, what made the sun shine, where babies came from, and what was thing crazy thing called love?  Emotions in general were worth explaining and understanding.   We were compelled by our urge to know, but limited in our knowledge.  Thus we created god to explain all the things that were unexplainable at the time.  It helped to allay our fears and let us get on with the day.  And it gave us some hope when we were confused.  God has always flourished where mystery is deepest.  Back when we were mostly small illiterate communities, theology had survival value. Quote How can an axiom precede the existence of anything at all? And how can we speak of preceding in a state of timeless eternity? Part of me thinks these are meaningless questions in the context of science.  Eternity is great fun to ponder, but scientifically beyond our grasp.  Surely you know that to ask what came before eternity is unanswerable.  The question is nonsensical.  It's mind tweaking if you enjoy that sort of thing, which I do sometimes.  But in a sincere discussion, I have to wonder what is your point?  Or let me pose you this question in return: what color is the smell of leather? But in a more philosophical frame of mind, I think the best response to unanswered questions is always, I don't know.

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,15:44    Russ, Quote Did I mock "Mike Gene's" credentials? Not directly. Quote What I was trying to point out is that, with no shortage of experts on bacterial flagella to choose from, with research records, and lots of evidence that they have not only thought about what they're writing, but have subjected their ideas to professional scrutiny, it seems unwise to rely on someone who won't even tell you his name, let alone why you should take his word for anything. Well, that is your prerogative. I'm pretty sure I already linked to an essay by Frank Tipler about the problems with the peer review process, how it enforces orthodoxy, and resists innovation. Not giving one's name is certainly an irregular situation, but then, s/he may have very good reasons for it. Quote Last time, you accused me of calling Spetner (or someone) "malicious", I challenged you to find the quote. You never did. Of course, you never retracted the accusation - you just said you didn't "have time"  to track it down, or some such. I said that I spent more time than it was worth to look it up. I was definitely remembering something I saw, and I couldn't find it. I also said perhaps it was not you who said it. I can neither retract nor stand by it. I'm just not interested in this level of personal bickering. Obviously the most famous paleontologist with a problem is Gould. Not that he gave up on evolution, but he definitely saw a problem with the data. Quote BTW - are we still waiting for Spetner to get back to you on why he screwed up, and what steps he's taking to set the record straight? Unfortunately, yes. That is, he got back to me the one time, and what he said indicated he didn't understand what he did. So I pointed it out more carefully, and he has not ever answered. Jay, Quote God is man's creation, not the other way around. In that case, we are not having the discussion I thought we were having. Quote How can an axiom precede the existence of anything at all? And how can we speak of preceding in a state of timeless eternity? Part of me thinks these are meaningless questions in the context of science.  Eternity is great fun to ponder, but scientifically beyond our grasp.  Surely you know that to ask what came before eternity is unanswerable. Yes, that was what I was pointing out.   Quote The question is nonsensical.  It's mind tweaking if you enjoy that sort of thing, which I do sometimes.  But in a sincere discussion, I have to wonder what is your point?  Or let me pose you this question in return: what color is the smell of leather? The whole thing became meaningless since we were not in the same discussion.

Pages: (14) < ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard