RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Jerry Don Bauer's Thread, Lather, Rinse, Repeat< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4504
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2012,08:55   

Jerry Don Bauer requested a thread for discussing past issues concerning Dembski's work. This should serve for that and for anything else that Jerry wants to bring up as a topic.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2012,13:39   

Thank you, Dr. Wesley.

Hopefully I can get caught up in the other thread before this one moves forward.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10224
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2012,13:39   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 21 2012,13:39)
Thank you, Dr. Wesley.

Hopefully I can get caught up in the other thread before this one moves forward.

No, No, please stay here!

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1956
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2012,21:41   

Jerry Don Bauer???

I am feeling old.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2012,10:04   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 21 2012,21:41)
Jerry Don Bauer???

I am feeling old.

You ARE old, Doc....lol...

OK, fed about 500 homeless and hungry people a NICE TG dinner in my ministry.....I think we can gear back up over the next few days.

I scanned back over the old thread and feel I pretty much answered the questions there if people will go back and read the posts in detail.

I would like to begin this thread by simply throwing out an olive branch; over the years I have noticed something about my friends on the other side: You seem a bit paranoid in that you hone in on the radicals who embrace Intelligent Design at the peril of grasping the overall perspective of it. You let them freak you out.

You ignore the majority of us who's views may not be that different than yours, or at least the majority of those who study origins as a science.

As example, I, as an individual, do not want to see Darwinism thrown out of public schools, I just want to see it taught in truth and it's tenets, both pro and con, examined in honesty. Is there something wrong with with truth in science? I think most of you would agree there isn't.

I would also like to see the tenets of ID taught in the same manner, after all, it was the concept of ID that brought us most science, a good chunk of philosopy; and the gist of theology throughout history. Yet, there are some (just as radical on the Dawrinist side, I'm afraid) who would like to see THIS fact ignored in our public schools because of THEIR religious beliefs.

Ignore the Ken Hams...most of us think their views are nuts as well. Examine the truths of a concept that has; and will forever more, permeate society around the world. And understand that this is NOT some newfangled concept designed to pull science out of schools and infuse religion therein. This is only what you've been told by some of your own radicals. Were the early philosophers religious nuts?

Socrates [1a], Plato, Diogenes, and Aristotle were just a few of the philosophers to argue for teleology when contemplating the origins of life. The opposite pole of the spectrum, the materialists, were represented by such great minds as Democritus, Leucippus of Elea, and Epicurus of Samos.

Socrates once presented the human eye as evidence of the wisdom of intelligent design:

"Is not that providence, Aristodemus, in a most eminent manner conspicuous, which because the eye of man is delicate in its contexture, hath therefore prepared eyelids like doors, whereby to screen it, which extend themselves whenever it is needful, and again close when sleep approaches?…And cans't thou still doubt Aristodemus, whether a disposition of parts like this should be the work of chance, or of wisdom and contrivance?"

Although theologically, ID is often traced back to Paley's watch on the heath, what is little known is that much earlier, it was firmly entrenched into philosophy and later, others would tie intelligent design directly into science.

Another example of the philosophy aspect was St. Thomas Aquinus' 5 ways where he mused both Intelligent Design and also conceived a Prime Mover in the universe hundreds of years before Newton would firmly entrench into science the same concept in the form of a law: objects at rest will stay at rest and objects in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by a force.

And, more specific to science, was the work of English physician William Harvey, considered by many to have laid the foundation for modern medicine. Harvey was the first to demonstrate the function of the heart and the circulation of the blood.[2]

According to Barrow and Tipler [3], Harvey deduced the mammalian circulatory system using the epistemology of teleology: "The way in which this respect for Aristotle was realized in Harvey's works seems to have been in the search for discernible purpose in the workings of living organisms- indeed, the expectation of purposeful activity . . . he tried to conceive of how a purposeful designer would have constructed a system of motion."

Harvey commented to Robert Boyle (the father of modern Chemistry) how he conceived the layout of the circulatory system. He reasoned the shape and positioning of the valves in the system and invited himself to imagine “that so Provident a cause as Nature had not so placed many values without Design; and no Design seem'd more possible than that, since the Blood could not well, because of the interposing valves, be sent, by the veins to the limbs; it should be sent through the Arteries and return through the veins.”

Today, modern ID is a totally science based discipline that has no ghosts, gods, fairies, leprechauns or metaphysics in it anywhere. But you have to weed out those, just as are present on your side, who wish to twist and manipulate the discipline to suit their own religious beliefs,..... and they abound in number. Ignore them.....seek truth:

1) ID is a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts. That's it.

2) Other branches of science also use many of the same tenets to detect design in an artifact or a system such as paleontology, archeology, cryptography and forensics. Of course, when those same tenets are used in ID, often it is termed to not be science anymore by many detractors.

3) Forget the identity of a designer. Do you need to know the name of the designer of your hair dryer in order to know it was designed? Does an archeologist need to know the name of the designer to conclude that a primitive artifact is a tool rather than a rock?

One reason that ID does not require a designer in the form of a deity is that quantum mechanics now provides evidence of an observer to provide the wave-collapse function to make matter solids/waves in the universe. Many of us look to this as the designer. One may call this observer Christ, Allah or Yahweh, agnostics may not know what to call it, and atheists can call it quantum mechanics. ID is one-size-fits-all!

4) We provide a model for initial design based on quantum mechanics just as do molecular design engineers. Unfortunately, Darwinism provides no models at all for abiogenesis.

5) ID is not a theory. There is no "theory of ID." There is no such thing as ID biology or ID chemistry. We study science just as does everyone else.

6) Again: ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) or even Darwinism, but seeks to pull secular humanistic religion out of science altogether and base science back on the tenets of science. Something wrong with this?

7) There is tons of positive evidence to support ID ranging from the fossil record to probability mathematics to science based comparison studies using semiotics to complex symbiotic systems found in nature to redundant systems found in genomes.

So..... let's discuss.

[1a] This line of reasoning first condensed and compiled by Mike Gene. Please see reference 1 and read the Web Site listed under that reference.

[1] http://www.theism.net/article....le....2
Site managed by Mike Gene. KEY WORDS: gene, socrates, paley, barrow, darwin, teleology, materialism.

[1b] Paley, W. (1802). Natural Theology, Chapter One.

[2]Keynes, G. (1928). A bibliography of the writings of William Harvey, M.D., discoverer of the circulation of the blood. Cambridge Eng., University press.

[3] The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford Paperbacks), John D. Barrow, Frank J. Tipler. Chapter 1,

[4] Greek term for the end--teleology is a philosophy that muses completion, purpose, or a goal-driven process of any thing or activity. Aristotle argued that teleology is the final cause accounting for the existence and nature of a thing. Teleological: an explanation, theory, hypotheses or argument that emphasizes purpose.

Recommended reading: F. M. J. Waanders, History of Telos and Teleo in Ancient Greek (Benjamins, 1984)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2012,10:51   

Simple discussion.

Items 1 through 7 are total bullshit.

End of discussion.

Next thread.

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2012,10:55   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 25 2012,10:51)
Simple discussion.

Items 1 through 7 are total bullshit.

End of discussion.

Next thread.

Care to expand and explain, point by point, why this is the case?

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1488
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2012,10:55   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04)
As example, I, as an individual, do not want to see Darwinism thrown out of public schools, I just want to see it taught in truth and it's tenets, both pro and con, examined in honesty.


It already is taught that way.

       
Quote
Is there something wrong with with truth in science? I think most of you would agree there isn't.


Problem is when religious wackaloons start proclaiming their religious beliefs to be 'truth' and demanding equal time in science classrooms.

       
Quote
And understand that this is NOT some newfangled concept designed to pull science out of schools and infuse religion therein.


Sadly, that's ALL it is.

       
Quote
Socrates [1a], Plato, Diogenes, and Aristotle were just a few of the philosophers to argue for teleology when contemplating the origins of life. The opposite pole of the spectrum, the materialists, were represented by such great minds as Democritus, Leucippus of Elea, and Epicurus of Samos.

Socrates once presented the human eye as evidence of the wisdom of intelligent design:

"Is not that providence, Aristodemus, in a most eminent manner conspicuous, which because the eye of man is delicate in its contexture, hath therefore prepared eyelids like doors, whereby to screen it, which extend themselves whenever it is needful, and again close when sleep approaches?…And cans't thou still doubt Aristodemus, whether a disposition of parts like this should be the work of chance, or of wisdom and contrivance?"

Although theologically, ID is often traced back to Paley's watch on the heath, what is little known is that much earlier, it was firmly entrenched into philosophy and later, others would tie intelligent design directly into science.

Another example of the philosophy aspect was St. Thomas Aquinus' 5 ways where he mused both Intelligent Design and also conceived a Prime Mover in the universe hundreds of years before Newton would firmly entrench into science the same concept in the form of a law: objects at rest will stay at rest and objects in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by a force.


Great.  We'll teach ID in philosophy class.

     
Quote
And, more specific to science, was the work of English physician William Harvey, considered by many to have laid the foundation for modern medicine. Harvey was the first to demonstrate the function of the heart and the circulation of the blood.[2]

According to Barrow and Tipler [3], Harvey deduced the mammalian circulatory system using the epistemology of teleology: "The way in which this respect for Aristotle was realized in Harvey's works seems to have been in the search for discernible purpose in the workings of living organisms- indeed, the expectation of purposeful activity . . . he tried to conceive of how a purposeful designer would have constructed a system of motion."

Harvey commented to Robert Boyle (the father of modern Chemistry) how he conceived the layout of the circulatory system. He reasoned the shape and positioning of the valves in the system and invited himself to imagine “that so Provident a cause as Nature had not so placed many values without Design; and no Design seem'd more possible than that, since the Blood could not well, because of the interposing valves, be sent, by the veins to the limbs; it should be sent through the Arteries and return through the veins.”


Maxwell imagined little demons pushing molecules around too.  That wasn't evidence there are little demons pushing molecules around.

     
Quote
Today, modern ID is a totally science based discipline that has no ghosts, gods, fairies, leprechauns or metaphysics in it anywhere.


LOL! Sure thing.  :p

     
Quote
But you have to weed out those, just as are present on your side, who wish to twist and manipulate the discipline to suit their own religious beliefs,..... and they abound in number. Ignore them.....seek truth:


...and of course your religion get to decide what is truth, right?  :p

     
Quote
1) ID is a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts. That's it.


Bullshit.  ID uses a purely negative approach of "if science can't explain this to my satisfaction, then ID wins by default".

     
Quote
2) Other branches of science also use many of the same tenets to detect design in an artifact or a system such as paleontology, archeology, cryptography and forensics.


More bullshit.  All those sciences start off by hypothesizing the identity of the designer (usually human, sometimes animal in the case of trace fossil evidence), then trying to match the unknown with something previously known to be designed.

     
Quote
Of course, when those same tenets are used in ID, often it is termed to not be science anymore by many detractors.


ID doesn't use the same method.

     
Quote
3) Forget the identity of a designer. Do you need to know the name of the designer of your hair dryer in order to know it was designed? Does an archeologist need to know the name of the designer to conclude that a primitive artifact is a tool rather than a rock?


The assumption is that the designer in each case was human.  If not the proper name, give us the species of your Intelligent Designer.

   
Quote
One reason that ID does not require a designer in the form of a deity is that quantum mechanics now provides evidence of an observer to provide the wave-collapse function to make matter solids/waves in the universe. Many of us look to this as the designer. One may call this observer Christ, Allah or Yahweh, agnostics may not know what to call it, and atheists can call it quantum mechanics. ID is one-size-fits-all!

4) We provide a model for initial design based on quantum mechanics just as do molecular design engineers. Unfortunately, Darwinism provides no models at all for abiogenesis.


Your "model for initial design" is nothing more than POOF!  MAGIC MAN DID IT!'

 
Quote
5) ID is not a theory. There is no "theory of ID."


No shit.

 
Quote
6) Again: ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) or even Darwinism, but seeks to pull secular humanistic religion out of science altogether and base science back on the tenets of science. Something wrong with this?


But that's not what ID is.  ID is about putting your particular religion back into science.  Not gonna happen.

     
Quote
7) There is tons of positive evidence to support ID ranging from the fossil record to probability mathematics to science based comparison studies using semiotics to complex symbiotic systems found in nature to redundant systems found in genomes.


You mean there is tons of God-Of-The-Gaps bullshit.  But we understand.

     
Quote
So..... let's discuss.


Do you have anything new to add beyond the stale old PRATT claims from the IDiot camp?  If not, there's nothing to discuss.

--------------
JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2012,11:24   

Guys, it's hard to address responses to my musings when all you say is Bullshit...lol

Quote
It already is taught that way.


No, the truth is not taught in schools about Darwinism....Never is it taught that the fossil record shows not a single transition from species A to species B to imply speciation......etc. only the pros are taught...not the cons.

Quote
Problem is when religious wackaloons start proclaiming their religious beliefs to be 'truth' and demanding equal time in science classrooms.


You mean the evangelical atheists called secular humanists who mask their religious faith as science to teach that man magically morphed from an ape-like critter against the scientific definition of a sexual species? I would agree.

Quote
Great.  We'll teach ID in philosophy class.


Science is also philosophy....Never heard of methodological naturalism and the scientific method?

Quote
Maxwell imagined little demons pushing molecules around too.  That wasn't evidence there are little demons pushing molecules around.


Of course not...just a good analogy to get you thinking....Never implied otherwise.

Quote
The hypothesis is that the designer in each case was human.  If not the proper name, give us the species of your Intelligent Designer.


Just like in ALL chemical design, I believe that the designer is Quantum Mechanics.......is QM a human, or a deity to you? You'll have to think that out for yourself.

Quote
More bullshit.  All those sciences start off by hypothesizing the identity of the designer (usually human, sometimes animal in the case of trace fossil evidence), then trying to match the unknown with something previously known to be designed.


Ahhhh...so you believe that chemistry, biology and physics also has designers.....They all begin by hypothesising the designer.......This is news to me, but I'll take it...lol

Quote
Your "model for initial design" is nothing more than POOF!  MAGIC MAN DID IT!'


No, that's abiogenesis and natural selection with people magicially poofing from monkeys and birds popping into dinosaurs and the like that is confusing you. Again, I believe QM does the designing. You have my permission to call QM God if you wish....:)

Quote
Do you have anything new to add beyond the stale old PRATT claims from the IDiot camp?  If not, there's nothing to discuss.


You seem quite adept at discussion thus far....*wink*

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1488
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2012,12:27   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,11:24)
Guys, it's hard to address responses to my musings when all you say is Bullshit...lol

It's impossible to rationally discuss a topic when all you post is the same tired old PRATT bullshit.

"no transitional fossils"

"evolution is religion"

"natural selection can't create"

Same old IDiot nonsense.  Boring.

--------------
JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2012,17:12   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 25 2012,12:27)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,11:24)
Guys, it's hard to address responses to my musings when all you say is Bullshit...lol

It's impossible to rationally discuss a topic when all you post is the same tired old PRATT bullshit.

"no transitional fossils"

"evolution is religion"

"natural selection can't create"

Same old IDiot nonsense.  Boring.

Please don't leave out the fact that what you gloss over in this post as trite, boring or idiocy has never been convincingly answered by your side to any extent what-so-ever, if indeed you ARE of the 'Darwinism as faith' persuasion.

However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side. That is simply a misunderstanding or obfuscation on your part. Evolution is an indisputable fact of science. To think differently would be to throw all that is known about genetics out the window.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1488
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2012,17:27   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,17:12)
 
Please don't leave out the fact that what you gloss over in this post as trite, boring or idiocy has never been convincingly answered by your side to any extent what-so-ever, if indeed you ARE of the 'Darwinism as faith' persuasion.

Your inane blithering has been answered to the complete satisfaction of the scientific community.  No one gives a shit if it hasn't been answered sufficiently for you.
Quote
However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side. That is simply a misunderstanding or obfuscation on your part. Evolution is an indisputable fact of science. To think differently would be to throw all that is known about genetics out the window.

Then what's with the Creationist stupidity "there are no transitional fossils" nonsense?

--------------
JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1255
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2012,17:33   

Mr Bauer, could you please define what you mean when you say "transitional fossil" - what features should it have?

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1016
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2012,17:35   

Ah, so it was QM that fucked mary the married virgin and knocked her up, and it was QM of Nazareth that performed miracles, and it was QM that was crucified, and it was QM that came back to life and walked around for awhile and then flew up to heaven and re-assimilated into its QM sky daddy, and it was QM that commanded noah to build a boat and load it with some critters, and QM is what the bible is all about, and preachers focus on QM in their sermons, and QM is what people pray to, and it could say 'In QM we trust' on USA money, and in England they could say 'QM save the Queen', and when women are having sex they could call out 'Oh QM!'.

Yeah, right. Whatever.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1016
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2012,18:02   

"However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side."

Pretty much everything about evolution, usually including whether evolution has ever occurred, is constantly "contested" (denied) by IDiot-creationists, even though they also contradict themselves by saying or implying that there was hyper-evolution after the alleged flud.

Some aspects of evolutionary processes are "contested" (debated) by scientists who study evolution.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2012,23:26   

Hey, Jerry Don, you're what I call a "fucking idiot."  That's a regular idiot who's not worth messing with.

No, I'm not going to go point by point into your fucking idiocy because it's fucking idiocy.

First of all, if you don't have a PhD in Physics or Chemistry and have earned a B+ or better in Quantum Electrodynamics II or III then you have no fucking privilege to use the word "quantum" in anything you write.  No, sorry, Bible 101 is not good enough, nor is a subscription to Discovery magazine.

In case you are unsure of the term "bullshit" which is an academic term, I suggest you read the book "On Bullshit" to find out where you stand.

Sorry, but the best I can do is mock you by saying fuck you and the horse you rode in on, whom I hope was a mare.  Just saying.

p.s.  And, yes, I am a lot smarter than you.

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 752
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2012,23:35   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 25 2012,23:26)
Hey, Jerry Don, you're what I call a "fucking idiot."  That's a regular idiot who's not worth messing with.

No, I'm not going to go point by point into your fucking idiocy because it's fucking idiocy.

First of all, if you don't have a PhD in Physics or Chemistry and have earned a B+ or better in Quantum Electrodynamics II or III then you have no fucking privilege to use the word "quantum" in anything you write.  No, sorry, Bible 101 is not good enough, nor is a subscription to Discovery magazine.

In case you are unsure of the term "bullshit" which is an academic term, I suggest you read the book "On Bullshit" to find out where you stand.

Sorry, but the best I can do is mock you by saying fuck you and the horse you rode in on, whom I hope was a mare.  Just saying.

p.s.  And, yes, I am a lot smarter than you.

Sure, but so's the horse he rode in on.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,00:04   

This guy is FL, right?  Same dude?

Totally fucking stupid beyond all redemption.

I thought so.

Sorry you're stupid, Don, buy some crayons. They're fun!

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1255
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,01:27   

I doubt it's FL: No "folksy" language, no witnessing.

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1016
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,02:39   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,09:24)
Guys, it's hard to address responses to my musings when all you say is Bullshit...lol

 
Quote
It already is taught that way.


No, the truth is not taught in schools about Darwinism....Never is it taught that the fossil record shows not a single transition from species A to species B to imply speciation......etc. only the pros are taught...not the cons.

 
Quote
Problem is when religious wackaloons start proclaiming their religious beliefs to be 'truth' and demanding equal time in science classrooms.


You mean the evangelical atheists called secular humanists who mask their religious faith as science to teach that man magically morphed from an ape-like critter against the scientific definition of a sexual species? I would agree.

 
Quote
Great.  We'll teach ID in philosophy class.


Science is also philosophy....Never heard of methodological naturalism and the scientific method?

 
Quote
Maxwell imagined little demons pushing molecules around too.  That wasn't evidence there are little demons pushing molecules around.


Of course not...just a good analogy to get you thinking....Never implied otherwise.

 
Quote
The hypothesis is that the designer in each case was human.  If not the proper name, give us the species of your Intelligent Designer.


Just like in ALL chemical design, I believe that the designer is Quantum Mechanics.......is QM a human, or a deity to you? You'll have to think that out for yourself.

 
Quote
More bullshit.  All those sciences start off by hypothesizing the identity of the designer (usually human, sometimes animal in the case of trace fossil evidence), then trying to match the unknown with something previously known to be designed.


Ahhhh...so you believe that chemistry, biology and physics also has designers.....They all begin by hypothesising the designer.......This is news to me, but I'll take it...lol

 
Quote
Your "model for initial design" is nothing more than POOF!  MAGIC MAN DID IT!'


No, that's abiogenesis and natural selection with people magicially poofing from monkeys and birds popping into dinosaurs and the like that is confusing you. Again, I believe QM does the designing. You have my permission to call QM God if you wish....:)

 
Quote
Do you have anything new to add beyond the stale old PRATT claims from the IDiot camp?  If not, there's nothing to discuss.


You seem quite adept at discussion thus far....*wink*

jerry, just one of the mistakes you're making is erroneously labeling modern evolutionary theory as "Darwinism".

Another is this:

"You mean the evangelical atheists called secular humanists who mask their religious faith as science to teach that man magically morphed from an ape-like critter against the scientific definition of a sexual species?"

No one (at least no one with a clue about evolution or evolutionary theory) teaches that man magically morphed from an ape-like critter. Your statement shows how ignorant you are about evolution and evolutionary theory. It also shows that your agenda is a religious one since your remarks are meant to be insulting to atheists and secular humanists. If ID is strictly scientific, and not a religious agenda, WHY do you care at all whether someone is an atheist or a secular humanist? And why doesn't it bother you that your religion teaches that humans were magically morphed from dust and a rib?

The ape to man thing is what bugs you creationists the most, isn't it? To you, an ape (or ape-like life form) is a lowly, stupid, soul-less, unclean animal, and humans (or at least 'god-fearing' humans) are exceptional, ensouled, clean beings who are specially created in the image of "God", right? Humans, being so 'special', just couldn't have evolved from a filthy ape, could they? And there's just no way that an ape could be anywhere close to the image of  "God", eh?

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,07:30   

I need to work on my style.  I think I came across as mocking when I was trying to be mocking AND uncivil AND insulting.

Really, though, where have all the good creationists gone?  I almost miss Floyd these days, ya know whut I mean, Vern?

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,07:36   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04)

Okay let me give a try:

Quote
1) ID is a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts. That's it.


No it isn't, I've never seen any science or mathematics or for that matter any real peer reviewed published research on the matter. They few arguments presented are full of holes and logic errors or are not consistent with evidence.

Quote

2) Other branches of science also use many of the same tenets to detect design in an artifact or a system such as paleontology, archeology, cryptography and forensics. Of course, when those same tenets are used in ID, often it is termed to not be science anymore by many detractors.


No I've never heard of archaeologists using CSI to determine if and artefact is Sumerian or Egyptian. Actually I've never seen anyone using CSI to do anything!

Quote

3) Forget the identity of a designer. Do you need to know the name of the designer of your hair dryer in order to know it was designed? Does an archeologist need to know the name of the designer to conclude that a primitive artifact is a tool rather than a rock?


That's like saying forget evolution in theory of evolution. Intelligent design needs a designer or you can't have a repository for the designs. Further you require that the design be intelligent, that really muddles things up for you as now, you have to deal with "only" intelligent sources how do you tell the difference? where do you draw the line? Are IQ tests necessary?

Yes an archaeologist needs to know the designers of an artefact or it could be ascribed to the wrong culture or even for something that's natural. QM is by no means intelligent and it doesn't have memory so it can't physically hold designs of elephants and/or onions.

Quote

4) We provide a model for initial design based on quantum mechanics just as do molecular design engineers. Unfortunately, Darwinism provides no models at all for abiogenesis.


You are confusing OOL theories with Theory of Evolution, abiogenesis is outside the scope of the Theory of Evolution. However you should note that there are many OOL theories that do look at this. If this is an issue for you please take it up with RNA world Theory or other similar abiogenesis theories. Further, ID, to my knowlege has never published anything in peer review to support any of it's claims.

Quote

5) ID is not a theory. There is no "theory of ID." There is no such thing as ID biology or ID chemistry. We study science just as does everyone else.


Many ID theorists would not agree with you. Just a thought, if it isn’t a theory then what is it? You do not study science or you would have noticed that the facts do not agree with your (pre)conceptions.

Quote
Again: ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) or even Darwinism, but seeks to pull secular humanistic religion out of science altogether and base science back on the tenets of science. Something wrong with this?


ehm there is no such thing as a religion in science. Science presents objective facts, the facts are either accepted or refuted if other facts become apparent. Now remember that one of your leading advocates Mr. Behe stated that for ID to become part of science it would be necessary to warp science to such an extent that astrology would also qualify as a science.

Quote

7) There is tons of positive evidence to support ID ranging from the fossil record to probability mathematics to science based comparison studies using semiotics to complex symbiotic systems found in nature to redundant systems found in genomes.


How exciting, let’s talk about positive evidence in the fossil record that supports "intelligent quantum mechanics designed a particular fossil". Before you do though, just give us a definition of what exactly are "intelligent quantum mechanics designers".

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3314
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,08:31   

Jerry,

Do you honestly think that you're the first person to come up with these ideas or that no one has ever had to deal with these concepts that you posted?

In fact, the Kitzmiller trial dealt handily with every single one of those 'issues' that you have brought up.  Basically, what you are doing is rehashing dead arguments.

That's why we are calling it bullshit and not bothering to describe to your complete satisfaction everything you desire.  There are several other reasons.

1) You won't accept anything that actually is evidence as evidence anyway.  So there's no point in providing you with all the evidence for transitional species, abiogenesis, or anything else.  You think evidence is a book of myths written 2000 years ago.  

2) You obviously haven't bothered to even consider the mountains of peer-reviewed work written in the last 100 years.  This stuff is readily available on the internet or in the university library of your choice.  Yet, you've never even bothered to type "evidence of transitional fossils" into Wikipedia where are there are links to about 50 peer-reviewed papers and additional reference material.  When you have read every single one of them and found errors and had those errors published and recognized and published an alternate explanation that uses principles of ID, then come talk to us.  The same thing applies to abiogenesis (over 150 links to peer-reviewed research and other reference materials).

3) No one really cares that you are ignorant.  And you are.  You are stunningly ignorant about the subjects you come here to debate.  It's your own fault.  Do you know why I don't have an advanced degree?  One reason is that I can read peer-reviewed research, judge the validity on my own, and use that to compile new information all by myself.  I don't need 3 years of education on that topic.  I can literally learn anything that I want to, because I can read and think critically.  You obviously can't do these things.  Why should we spoon feed you stuff that we busted ass to learn on our own?

4) There is no indication that you want to actually learn how science, evolution, abiogenesis, fossilization, or any of a dozen other concepts that you malign work.  In other words, you are ignorant, proud of it, and choose to remain that way.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2136
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,09:15   

Years later and -- pretending for a moment it's all about the science -- I still don't see the point of ID.

"This doesn't seem likely" is still not positive evidence of interference, tinkering, or front-loading of anything by anyone.  They still conflate "We don't know yet" with "Goddidit".

Even if you could somehow pretend ID is a scientific idea, what possible use could it ever be? "Welp, this bit looks designed. Moving on..."  

How does pretending bipedalism (or GULO damage or nylonase production or...) was a gift from somewhere,  change how we deal with it?

Useless.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,09:19   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 25 2012,17:33)
Mr Bauer, could you please define what you mean when you say "transitional fossil" - what features should it have?

Hello Kattarina:

If all of life sprang from a common ancestor--a protist--as example, the fossil record would show a gradual transition from that initial organism to higher life forms: gradual macroevolution, or what Gould and others spoke of as gradualism.

The fossil record is a very accurate record of the history of the origin of homo sapiens and the other complex life forms.

But it does not show this by any stretch of the imagination! Gould and many others have pointed out this flaw as did Darwin himself--Which is one reason, I believe, he came up with Punctuated Equilibrium (Punk Eek) which has more problems than the lack of gradualism he attempted to explain away.

Instead of gradualism, we find long periods of stasis where nothing seemed to be happening, interspersed with periods of sudden (relatively so-when we consider the billions of years of biotic history on earth, our island home) appearance of higher life forms. The Cambrian Explosion is a good example of this.

These higher evolved organisms appeared seemingly out of nowhere with no fossil record leading up to that appearance--fully formed and ready to compete in their environment.

In fact, they STAY the way they initially appeared in the record until they become extinct, never evolving into anything else.

A good example might be a find of the following fossils: Species A -----> transition 1 -----> transition 2 -----> transition 3 -----> New species B.

There ARE a few examples that Darwinists point to and proclaim as transitions, yet there are NONE that are not controversial in that this could just be other similar species, etc. And they can't even seem to agree themselves that these are transitions.

This is a major flaw in Darwinistic thought that no one has yet to convincingly explain.

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,09:27   

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 25 2012,17:35)
Ah, so it was QM that fucked mary the married virgin and knocked her up, and it was QM of Nazareth that performed miracles, and it was QM that was crucified, and it was QM that came back to life and walked around for awhile and then flew up to heaven and re-assimilated into its QM sky daddy, and it was QM that commanded noah to build a boat and load it with some critters, and QM is what the bible is all about, and preachers focus on QM in their sermons, and QM is what people pray to, and it could say 'In QM we trust' on USA money, and in England they could say 'QM save the Queen', and when women are having sex they could call out 'Oh QM!'.

Yeah, right. Whatever.

Absolutely...........QM is everything....are you not made of particles? Is not everything in the megaverse? Is not God if one exists? Is not the birth process and even the neurons through which acetylcholine esterase (sp??) flows causing you to think, cry and be happy?

Through the concept of quantum entanglement where the actions of one particle affects the actions of another, can that not cause changes in physics that might seem as miricles to those not familiar with QM?

Just like when you go to Taco Bell, you need to think outside the bun. *wink*

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,09:31   

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 25 2012,18:02)
"However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side."

Pretty much everything about evolution, usually including whether evolution has ever occurred, is constantly "contested" (denied) by IDiot-creationists, even though they also contradict themselves by saying or implying that there was hyper-evolution after the alleged flud.

Some aspects of evolutionary processes are "contested" (debated) by scientists who study evolution.

This is absolutely false. You actually KNOW people who postulate that there are no drug resistant bacteria due to mutations?

That, my friend, is evolution.....a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

You seem quite uneducated in the argument thus far.

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,09:33   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 25 2012,23:26)
Hey, Jerry Don, you're what I call a "fucking idiot."  That's a regular idiot who's not worth messing with.

No, I'm not going to go point by point into your fucking idiocy because it's fucking idiocy.

First of all, if you don't have a PhD in Physics or Chemistry and have earned a B+ or better in Quantum Electrodynamics II or III then you have no fucking privilege to use the word "quantum" in anything you write.  No, sorry, Bible 101 is not good enough, nor is a subscription to Discovery magazine.

In case you are unsure of the term "bullshit" which is an academic term, I suggest you read the book "On Bullshit" to find out where you stand.

Sorry, but the best I can do is mock you by saying fuck you and the horse you rode in on, whom I hope was a mare.  Just saying.

p.s.  And, yes, I am a lot smarter than you.

Right....I understand that you cannot address the discussion rationally......It's OK.

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1238
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,09:34   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,09:27)
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 25 2012,17:35)
Ah, so it was QM that fucked mary the married virgin and knocked her up, and it was QM of Nazareth that performed miracles, and it was QM that was crucified, and it was QM that came back to life and walked around for awhile and then flew up to heaven and re-assimilated into its QM sky daddy, and it was QM that commanded noah to build a boat and load it with some critters, and QM is what the bible is all about, and preachers focus on QM in their sermons, and QM is what people pray to, and it could say 'In QM we trust' on USA money, and in England they could say 'QM save the Queen', and when women are having sex they could call out 'Oh QM!'.

Yeah, right. Whatever.

Absolutely...........QM is everything....are you not made of particles? Is not everything in the megaverse? Is not God if one exists? Is not the birth process and even the neurons through which acetylcholine esterase (sp??) flows causing you to think, cry and be happy?

Through the concept of quantum entanglement where the actions of one particle affects the actions of another, can that not cause changes in physics that might seem as miricles to those not familiar with QM?

Just like when you go to Taco Bell, you need to think outside the bun. *wink*

Jerry,

Not all particles are entangled.  Your QM argument lacks coherence.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2136
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,09:35   

It's like if Henry Morris had written timecube.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
  740 replies since Nov. 21 2012,08:55 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (25) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]