RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Zardoz



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,07:16   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 24 2006,12:54)
Zardoz, what you are describing are personal beliefs.  But there is a difference in personal beliefs and what constitutes science.  The issue is the scientific community does not want personal theistsic beliefs being promoted as science.

In over 10 years the intelligent design folks have yet to provide a shred of testable theory or anything scientific.  

And to say "hey look at this evidence of design" is not science.  Besides, the so called evidence they provide is simply wrong.

Furthermore, saying it could be a space alien or time traveler is not scientific either.  It's voodoo.  We have no evidence of a space alien or time travelers, so to suggest these imaginary constructs are responsible for shiny objects we see in biology is nonsense.  

And until they can produce a space alien or time traveler (or God) and demonstrate how they go about creating, their ID theory will remain unscientific.  They might as well say "shiny objects in biology are the reult of wiggly-pigglys" since there is as much evidence for wiggly-pigglyes as there is for Klingons, time travelers and space aliens.

Now there is nothing wrong with theorizing Klingons dunnit, but to suggest that theory is scientific and should be taught in science class is quackery.

And I am sympathetic to the crowd that wants to find God in a petri dish, but if that discovery is ever made it will not likely come from the ID crowd.  So far all the ID "scientists"  are either bad philosophers, lawyers, or blind quacks like M Behe.

What I see in most people who support ID is the belief that evolution is implausible, and therefore by a process of elimination what is left to explain living things?

You mention magical entities as not being a sophisticated enough explanation for life on earth. But if we go all the way back to the very first life on urth we are confronted with no less of a magical event if you postulate that matter self organized into a cell that was programmed to replicate.

Also is it really plausible that evolutionary theory can account for the percentage of artistic precision, color coordination, and symmetrically beautiful shapes found in nature? Almost every life form that we can see with our unaided eye is confounding chance by being artistically phenomenal. Why isn't the overwhelming attribute of the living world utilitarian and drab? Why is art the rule rather then the exception? Magic? What did Arthur C. Clarke say about magic?

--------------
When you die, if you get a choice between going to regular heaven or pie heaven, choose pie heaven. It might be a trick, but if it's not, mmmmmmm, boy. Once my friend told me that he had found Jesus. I thought to myself, "WooHoo, we're rich!" It turns out he meant something different. -Jack Handey

   
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,07:37   

Quote (Zardoz @ Jan. 24 2006,13:16)
What I see in most people who support ID is the belief that evolution is implausible, and therefore by a process of elimination what is left to explain living things?

You mention magical entities as not being a sophisticated enough explanation for life on earth. But if we go all the way back to the very first life on urth we are confronted with no less of a magical event if you postulate that matter self organized into a cell that was programmed to replicate.

Also is it really plausible that evolutionary theory can account for the percentage of artistic precision, color coordination, and symmetrically beautiful shapes found in nature? Almost every life form that we can see with our unaided eye is confounding chance by being artistically phenomenal. Why isn't the overwhelming attribute of the living world utilitarian and drab? Why is art the rule rather then the exception? Magic? What did Arthur C. Clarke say about magic?

So, you are basically arguing from incredulity then.

One another note, you might want to check out the movie "I (heart) Huckabees".

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,07:39   

Zardoz, I am not saying what you believe is wrong, I am simply saying it is not scientific and therefore does not belong in a science class.

And you and I can agree that much of nature is awe inspiring in its beauty.  There is also a lot of horrifying things in nature as well.  Neither the beauty nor the horror is scientific evidence of a designer.

And evolution does not answer every question.  You are free to offer a more scientific and better explaination than evolution has provided.  But note so far no one in the ID camp has been able to do so.

And I cannot help the fact that so many people reject testable, verifiable evidence when it comes to biology and evolution.  Have you read Behe's testimony?  He is the poster boy for rejecting overwhelming biological evidence.  He is not alone in his pursuit to believe what he wants in spite of the obvious contradictory scientific evidence which suggests he is mistaken.

People have the right to live in a make believe world but teaching make believe in science class is not cool.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
stevestory



Posts: 8994
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,07:42   

Quote
What I see in most people who support ID is the belief that evolution is implausible, and therefore by a process of elimination what is left to explain living things?


You might find Judge Jones's opinion enlightening about why this is a terrible argument.

Quote
ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent
evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed. (5:41 (Pennock)). This
argument is not brought to this Court anew, and in fact, the same argument, termed
“contrived dualism” in McLean, was employed by creationists in the 1980's to
support “creation science.” The court in McLean noted the “fallacious pedagogy
of the two model approach” and that “[i]n efforts to establish ‘evidence’ in support
of creation science, the defendants relied upon the same false premise as the two
model approach . . . all evidence which criticized evolutionary theory was proof in
support of creation science.” McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1267, 1269. We do not find
this false dichotomy any more availing to justify ID today than it was to justify
creation science two decades ago.
ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments
against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that “irreducibly
complex” systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural,
Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 71 of 139

72
mechanisms. (5:38-41 (Pennock); 1:39, 2:15, 2:35-37, 3:96 (Miller); 16:72-73
(Padian); 10:148 (Forrest)). However, we believe that arguments against evolution
are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because
scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that
they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. (2:36-37 (Miller)).
As Dr. Padian aptly noted, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
(17:45 (Padian)). To that end, expert testimony from Drs. Miller and Padian
provided multiple examples where Pandas asserted that no natural explanations
exist, and in some cases that none could exist, and yet natural explanations have
been identified in the intervening years. It also bears mentioning that as Dr. Miller
stated, just because scientists cannot explain every evolutionary detail does not
undermine its validity as a scientific theory as no theory in science is fully
understood. (3:102 (Miller)).


or you might find this refutation from TalkOrigins more persuasive:
Quote
Claim CA510:
Creation and evolution are the only two models of origins.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 3, 8-10.
Response:

  1. There are many mutually exclusive models of creation. Biblical creationism alone includes geocentrism, young-earth creationism, day-age creationism, progressive creationism, intelligent design creationism, and more. And then there are hundreds of very different varieties of creation from other religions and cultures. Some of the harshest criticism of creation models comes from creationists who believe other models.

  2. Many noncreationist alternatives to Darwinian evolution, or significant parts of it, are possible and have received serious attention in the past. These include, among others,
         * orthogenesis
         * neo-Lamarckianism
         * process structuralism
         * saltationism
     (See Wilkins 1998 below for elaboration.)

  3. Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. They coexist in models such as theistic evolution.

Links:
Isaak, Mark. 2000. What is creationism? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

Wilkins, John. 1998. So you want to be an anti-Darwinian: Varieties of opposition to Darwinism. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/anti-darwin.html
Further Reading:
Kossy, Donna. 2001. Strange Creations: Aberrant Ideas of Human Origins from Ancient Astronauts to Aquatic Apes. Los Angeles: Feral House.


by the way, I doubt you have an argument against evolution which is not dealt with at the TalkOrigins list of creationist claims:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,07:46   

Quote (GCT @ Jan. 24 2006,13:37)
So, you are basically arguing from incredulity then.

Also known as the Argument from ignorance or what Betrand Russell called "poverty of the imagination".

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,07:47   

Charliecrs wrote:
Quote
the overwhelming evidence of the fossil record ?
overwhelming evidence period - no questions asked ?

No, Charlie.  Many questions asked and successfully answered.  And the evidence comes not only from the fossil record, but also from molecular biology, the geographic distribution of species and fossils, vestigial structures, embryology, and more.
Quote
came to realize that the world is round, instead of being flat like to so called uneducated bible believers thought it was ?

I don't have the contempt for "bible believers" that you are apparently expecting.  I was raised as a biblical literalist and so I can empathize with those who still accept the Bible as God's word, although I no longer do so.
Quote
because the earth / universe is millions  / billions of years old ? therefor we weren't made in 6 so adios los bible believers ?

Yes, the Earth is very old.  This by itself is a necessary but not sufficient condition for evolution to have occurred.
Quote
because we have *evolved*  from the great ape *ape like*  creature ? and have the well documented, "homo every-things" as proofs ?

Yes, but not just the fossil evidence.  Also genetic similarities, morphological and molecular homologies, and the chromosomal fusion data that has recently come to light.
Quote
Perhaps you accept Darwin for all of the above statements with a couple exceptions. I for one cant understand it.

It's not Darwin I accept, but evolution.  As for understanding it, you might find it beneficial to learn more about evolution so that you'll know why its proponents find it to be such a compelling explanation for life's diversity.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,07:58   

Quote
But if we go all the way back to the very first life on urth we are confronted with no less of a magical event if you postulate that matter self organized into a cell that was programmed to replicate.

This "magical" event is not a part of Evolutionary Theory proper. This beginning of life is Abiogenesis, and is separate from all evolution that happened after that event. And it could have been God or aliens or a natural expression of the universe that done it. I actually think you and I would agree that it was a natural expression of the universe, except that I'm not convinced at all of any conscousness having to do with it.

Oh, and thinking of a modern "cell" as the first spontaneous natural replicator is way, way too big and complex.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,08:07   

Quote (Charliecrs @ Jan. 24 2006,12:10)
Russel - I can easily argue that Evolution is a seat warmer for uneducated atheist /secularists who think they are some dignified smart people because they can be intelligent while rejecting the notion of a "G-d"... You know the type who argues that 'separation of church & state' is in the constitution. While @ the same-time have a lifetime membership to American united for sep. & church [curiously enough]. Uneducated because if they actually read the constitution they would of withdraw their membership a longtime ago.

Charlie

I know I may be troll baiting here, but I'd like to see you "easily" argue your case here, including the bit about separation of church and state.  If you decide to take this on, good luck, you'll need it.

  
Zardoz



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,08:19   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 24 2006,13:46)
[quote=GCT,Jan. 24 2006,13:37]So, you are basically arguing from incredulity then.
Also known as the Argument from ignorance or what Betrand Russell called "poverty of the imagination".

I prefer to call it rational conclusion following occam's razor. And i don't care if it's taught in public schools or not. It's not like many kids are interested anyways. If any kid was really interested in evolution or ID then they would do their own research. From my experience of public school everything we went through was like a Readers Digest version of education i.e superficial, full of mistakes, and outdated.

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/underground/toc1.htm

--------------
When you die, if you get a choice between going to regular heaven or pie heaven, choose pie heaven. It might be a trick, but if it's not, mmmmmmm, boy. Once my friend told me that he had found Jesus. I thought to myself, "WooHoo, we're rich!" It turns out he meant something different. -Jack Handey

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,08:27   

RE: "plausibility"

As others have pointed out, "plausibility" doesn't count for much in science. It ranks somewhere between "intuition" and "hunch".

But I'd like to point out a few plausibility related items:

(1) Very few people involved in the actual study of biology or allied fields share this sense of implausibility about evolution.

(2) Lots of people find lots of physics "implausible" (relativistic time dilation; light being both particle and wave, etc.) So far, no one has tried to elevate that sense of "implausibility" to the status of "alternative theory".

(3) I find ID implausible: mainly the notion of nonphysical supernatural things affecting physical natural things, and the "infinite regress" problem: who designed the designer?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,08:34   

Quote (Zardoz @ Jan. 24 2006,14:19)
I prefer to call it rational conclusion following occam's [sic] razor.

Zardoz, you can call it anything you want, but that does not make it so.

You were given this Link that covers pretty much every creationist anti-evolutionist arguement.  You'd be wise to use it.

Oh, and here is what have already been said about Ockham's razor...

Claim CA240:
Ockham's Razor says the simplest explanation should be preferred. That explanation is creation.
Source:
Morris, John D., 1999 (15 Sep., 10:00-11:00 PDT), "Forum", KQED radio.
Response:

Ockham's Razor does not say that the simplest explanation should be favored. It says that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity (non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem). In other words, new principles should not be invoked if existing principles already provide an explanation. If, however, the simpler explanation does not cover all the details, then additional "entities" are necessary.

Creationism is not an explanation. An explanation tells why something is one way instead of an alternative way. But creationism does not rule out any alternatives, since a creator God could have done anything. Because of this, creationism adds nothing to any argument. Thus, creationism is an unnecessary entity and, by Ockham's Razor, should be eliminated.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
stevestory



Posts: 8994
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,08:53   

Over at Uncommon Pissant this guy ftrp11 is making comments which contradict the official line, and he's been doing so for more than 24 hours. Wonder how long until he's bounced.

   
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,09:01   

CharlieCRS,

Go read this well put together explanation for the compelling evidence for evolution.  And read the whole thing.  Then re-read the part about how science works.  Then skim it again.  Then you can ask your questions about evolution that are worth replying to.

-Dan

  
stevestory



Posts: 8994
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,09:21   

Quote
CharlieCRS,

Go read this well put together explanation for the compelling evidence for evolution.  And read the whole thing.  Then re-read the part about how science works.  Then skim it again.  


Then when you find an antievolution argument you believe is correct, go here and find out why it isn't.

   
Zardoz



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,09:42   

Quote (Russell @ Jan. 24 2006,14:27)
RE: "plausibility"

As others have pointed out, "plausibility" doesn't count for much in science. It ranks somewhere between "intuition" and "hunch".

But I'd like to point out a few plausibility related items:

(1) Very few people involved in the actual study of biology or allied fields share this sense of implausibility about evolution.

(2) Lots of people find lots of physics "implausible" (relativistic time dilation; light being both particle and wave, etc.) So far, no one has tried to elevate that sense of "implausibility" to the status of "alternative theory".

(3) I find ID implausible: mainly the notion of nonphysical supernatural things affecting physical natural things, and the "infinite regress" problem: who designed the designer?


(! ) argumentum ad populum

(2)Yet we do find an alternate theory to evolution :D

(3)Your mind and intellect are not physical and they affect physical natural things

The problem of infinite regression is easily solved when we notice that whether you posit a God or no-God we come to the same situation vis-a-vis what existed when. If we posit no-God we still have the question of where the universe came from. Whether we examine the big bang theory or the universe with no beginning theories we still have to confront the question of what caused the universe or the stuff in the universe to come into existence.

The big bang theory or the universe with no beginning theories don't try to explain where the substance of the big bang or the universe came from. That hasn't stopped some scientists theorizing about where that stuff came from. Whatever theory they may come up with ultimately they will have to face one of 2 possibilities. A) There is no origin i.e the stuff has always existed in some form or dimension. B) The stuff or some form of it popped into existence at some point.

Choice B must be resisted because it violates logic. If nothing existed then something could never pop into existence because there is nothing which can give something the causal impetus to exist. Nothing cannot produce something. If there is something in existence then there has always been something in existence.

That leaves us us with choice A: There is no origin.

Whether you argue for a God or against a God in both cases logic demands that something has always existed. If you argue against a God you have to concede that all of the stuff we can perceive in the universe has always existed in some form or dimension. The big bang theory states that all of the matter and energy in the universe today existed before the big bang in the condensed whatever (different theories have been promoted as to what that was) which expanded when the big bang occured. The "universe with no beginning" theorists may have put forth some theories as to the cause of matter/energy in the universe but I have never read one.

If you argue for a God then you have to argue that God is either the original susbtance of the universe or a product or transformation of the original substance. A logical argument for the God side for the source of the universe would be that 3 dimensional matter/energy which follows the laws of physics in the universe, began when God built matter/energy using the original substance of the universe in whatever form or dimension was available. By universe I mean the stuff in the universe. Space time is where stuff exists. Since there could never have been a time when something didn't exist in the universe, therefore space time has always existed as well in order to accomodate that stuff.

--------------
When you die, if you get a choice between going to regular heaven or pie heaven, choose pie heaven. It might be a trick, but if it's not, mmmmmmm, boy. Once my friend told me that he had found Jesus. I thought to myself, "WooHoo, we're rich!" It turns out he meant something different. -Jack Handey

   
stevestory



Posts: 8994
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,09:55   

Quote
argumentum ad populum
In the abstract world of Platonic Ideals, this is an error, sure. And it doesn't prove, in a philisophically perfect sense, evolution. But it lends a huge amount of weight in the real world. In the real world, there isn't time for each person to debate and analyse every last thing. It is reasonable to use authority in making decisions.

Anyway, you said evolution was implausible to you. That's not a logically sound argument to begin with. So when someone responds that the experts don't feel that way, and you say they're making a logically unsound argument, you hold them to a standard you didn't meet.

   
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,10:06   

Evolution explains species as originating from a common ancestor or only a few common ancestors. It has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, or even the origin of life.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,10:37   

Quote
(! ) argumentum ad populum
Quite the contrary! First, it's not an argument at all, it's an observation. If you think your own personal "feeling" of implausibility counts for something, I'm inviting you to wonder why people who have devoted a heck of a lot of time, study and research into it don't share that feeling. If, on the other hand, you contend that your own personal feeling of implausibility counts for something because a largish fraction of the (nonspecialist) population shares that feeling, I would call that an argumentum ad populum.

Quote
(2)Yet we do find an alternate theory to evolution
What is that theory? (Note: "an unknown entity did an unknown thing at an unknown time" doesn't count as a theory. Nor does "I find evolution implausible, therefore it musta been God".)

Quote
(3)Your mind and intellect are not physical and they affect physical natural things
"Mind" and "intellect", like "metabolism", describe properties of my physical self. They affect physical natural things in the same sense my metabolism does.

I note, though, we are experiencing "thread drift" here. Possibly, if this discussion is worth pursuing at all, it might be best to start a fresh topic.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
stevestory



Posts: 8994
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,10:40   

the thread is drifting, and I don't enjoy creationist participation particularly, but I am enjoying this thread being more tolerant of ID advocates that Uncommon Pissant is being at the moment. That's just delicious.

Have you noticed that today's Uncommon Pissant threads are not getting much comment action? Banning so many people is having an effect, methinks.

   
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,10:54   

Zardoz:

I guess what I wrote passed by you. Communication isn't always easy about this stuff.

Quote
For myself and my friends who hold the same views as me on evolution we simply find evolutionary theory too implausible, nothing emotional about it.

Well, I always consider this sort of reply to be hilariously dishonest, though probably more with yourself than with anyone else. Any explanation of any body of evidence doesn't sound implausible in a vacuum, it always sounds implausible compared to something that sounds MORE plausible. That's the only way it can possibly work. For example, you may find the notion of someone flying by flapping his arms implausible, but only by comparison to known information on this subject.

So I guess we need to dig into WHY you find it implausible. Plausibility is a comparative term, and the "compared to what" must be specified. Otherwise, we are reduced to guessing that you find it implausible in comparison to magic, but you're pretending otherwise.

Quote
What do you mean? (about DaveScot peeking)

I mean, he is actually looking (sometimes, not too hard, but still looking) at actual evidence. And evolutionary theory in the context of evidence is not only plausible, it's stone cold obvious. Shame on DaveScot for letting the nose of evidence into the Big Tent.

Quote
But if we go all the way back to the very first life on urth we are confronted with no less of a magical event if you postulate that matter self organized into a cell that was programmed to replicate.

Why do you say this? The origin of life from nonliving organic molecules is higly active, lots of experiments are being done, a great deal is being learned. And while there are highly competitive schools of thought, none of them would dream of suggesting that a living cell happened all at once. We're looking at tens to hundreds of millions of years, with thousands of steps along the way to what we might generously call a protocell today.

Your statement seems to ignore both the processes involved, and the time available. Kind of looking at a modern fighter jet and assuming that it has no aircraft history.

Quote
Also is it really plausible that evolutionary theory can account for the percentage of artistic precision, color coordination, and symmetrically beautiful shapes found in nature? Almost every life form that we can see with our unaided eye is confounding chance by being artistically phenomenal

Sheesh. And isn't it a marvel that smoke rises from a fire, rather than forming a fist and smacking you upside the head? Wowie zowie! Ooooh. By the way, have you ever looked at your hand? I mean, REALLY looked at it? Can I have another hit?

Quote
Why isn't the overwhelming attribute of the living world utilitarian and drab?

Other self-appointed art critics see exactly that. How mundane the world is, they say. How boring and uninteresting and dull. I suppose you'll claim that those who see the world the way you do are commenting on the world, those who see it differently are only commenting on themselves. Convenient, I guess.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,11:07   

Quote
Flint was all like,

"Sheesh. And isn't it a marvel that smoke rises from a fire, rather than forming a fist and smacking you upside the head? Wowie zowie! Ooooh. By the way, have you ever looked at your hand? I mean, REALLY looked at it? Can I have another hit?"


Flint, dude you are my hero and pass me that bong, will you?  If you're ever in Texas and want to sit around and contemplate the human hand, give me a ring.  That was too funny

Your whole post was good but that piece was especially fun.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Zardoz



Posts: 20
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,13:31   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 24 2006,14:34)
[quote=Zardoz,Jan. 24 2006,14:19]I prefer to call it rational conclusion following occam's [sic] razor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Zardoz, you can call it anything you want, but that does not make it so.


Ditto. :D

Quote
 You were given this Link that covers pretty much every creationist anti-evolutionist arguement.  You'd be wise to use it.


I 've been reading that site for a long time and I disagree with many of the conclusions.

Quote
Oh, and here is what have already been said about Ockham's razor...

Claim CA240:
Ockham's Razor says the simplest explanation should be preferred. That explanation is creation.
Source:
Morris, John D., 1999 (15 Sep., 10:00-11:00 PDT), "Forum", KQED radio.
Response:

Ockham's Razor does not say that the simplest explanation should be favored. It says that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity (non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem). In other words, new principles should not be invoked if existing principles already provide an explanation. If, however, the simpler explanation does not cover all the details, then additional "entities" are necessary.

Creationism is not an explanation. An explanation tells why something is one way instead of an alternative way. But creationism does not rule out any alternatives, since a creator God could have done anything. Because of this, creationism adds nothing to any argument. Thus, creationism is an unnecessary entity and, by Ockham's Razor, should be eliminated.


In my opinion there is an explanation which better suits what we know are the limits of chance to produce a Mango tree from random mutations starting from within a single cell. In my opinion random mutation is evolutions fatal flaw.

Evolution tells us that random mistakes in a genome not only creates incredibly complex synchronized information processing and storing systems, but also the information they utilize, the nanotechnology which can make use of the information, and the end result of a color coordinated artistically brilliant highly complex living entity, like a tiger, or an orchid, or a butterfly, or a sequoia tree, or a Mango, or pretty much everything.

Evolution tells us that all life (except the first) came to exist through random mutations gradually building every part of every species. Every form of life has a blueprint stored within the lifeform which tells the nanotechnology within the cells and organs how to construct the particular body plan. There are numerous types of very complex coded information systems within every living entity along with extremely tiny molecular nanotechnology which reads the code, understands the code, and then constructs extremely complex biological machines.

Can random mutations build these microscopic nanotechnologies, coding systems (coding, reading, understanding the code) and the blueprints which they come with?

I cannot accept that chaotic disorganized mutations can produce the vast diversity and stunning technological complexity of life as we know it. You may argue that random mutation plus natural selection somehow rises above chaos, but I don't buy it. The numerical probability is beyond astronomical that a series of random mutations can design a Lion or a rose bush. Nope, sorry. For me Occam's Razor rules out evolution because life as we know it would require millions of miracles happening on a scale beyond imagining, whereas a designer would only require one miracle.

To say that "creationism" is not an explanation is not true. Creationism or Intelligent Design makes an explanation, you may not think it to be sufficient, but it nevertheless does make a explanation i.e an intelligent entity built all life forms from a plan. That's an explanation. You don't have to accept it, but it is in fact an explanation. Just like if you asked me how did Trump Towers come into existence and I answered "Donald Trump had his people build it". It may not be a detailed explanation, but it is nevertheless an explanation and a true one at that.

It's all about mathematical probabilities. By the process of elimination we arrive at the mathematical probability of an intelligent agent. Random mutations are random, and it is that randomness which is evolution's fatal flaw. Random events may occasionally produce some type of simple non chaotic outcome, but as more random events occur that non chaotic event will turn back into chaos. The more complex something is the less chance it came about by random forces.

A good example is the snowflake. They are produced by a fairly complex process and they are fairly complex designs. But as random natural events act on the snowflake the design doesn't increase in complexity, it breaks down completely e.g the flake melts or compacts.

I know evolutionists like to ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but it is simply not plausible that chaos can consistently produce increasing complexity over a long period of time over and over multiplied millions of times. The numbers don't add up. So Occam's Razor points us to the explanation which requires the least amount of inconsistency with known laws of nature and mathematical probabilities. Evolution cannot be the answer. And in the end there is only one other explanation which isn't bogged down by fatal flaws.

We shouldn't be attached to the truth or falsity of any given theory. If something we think is true turns out to have been a mistake, and conversely if what we thought was a mistake then turns out to be true, we should be glad our understanding has been elevated. This isn't a contest. People who feel they have something to gain or lose in the debate need to check their agendas and egos at the door. There is much much more to the world then meets the eye.

--------------
When you die, if you get a choice between going to regular heaven or pie heaven, choose pie heaven. It might be a trick, but if it's not, mmmmmmm, boy. Once my friend told me that he had found Jesus. I thought to myself, "WooHoo, we're rich!" It turns out he meant something different. -Jack Handey

   
djmullen



Posts: 327
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,13:46   

Someone: "So, you are basically arguing from incredulity then.  Also known as the Argument from ignorance or what Betrand Russell called "poverty of the imagination"."

Zardoz: I prefer to call it rational conclusion following occam's razor.

djmullen: Occam's razor says to choose the simpler of two explanations that cover the observations equally well.  The problem here is that ANY Intelligent Designer, even a lowly human designer, must have a mind and even a lowly human mind is incredibly complex and requires trillions of bits of information to function.

For instance, an Intelligent Designer would have to understand how even something as simple as a one celled organism works before he could design or build one and that would require millions of bits of information or more.  (For instance, it would require approximately as much information as is found in the organisms genome.)

Evolution, on the other hand, is dumb as dirt: get a population of genetically self-reproducing critters.  Mistakes  will inevitably be made copying the genome, which means that some of the offspring will not be exactly like their parent(s).  If one of those offspring is better at making a living than their parent(s), they will tend to increase in numbers at the expense of their parent(s).

Total information required for evolution - a few bits at a time, which are generated through errors in copying the genome.

Total information required for any kind of remotely Intelligent Designer: Trillions.

Which method passes the Occam's razor test?  Evolution!   And the final score is billions to a few against Intelligent Design.

P.S. If anybody doubts that a God or Intelligent Designer's mind requires huge amounts of information to exist and function, ask yourself these questions:

1) Does God know your phone number?  If He does, then his mind contains at least enough information to incode your phone number, area code and country code.  That's about 13 decimal digits or roughly 40+ bits of information, so God (or any Intelligent Designer) has to have at least 40 bits of information in His mind to know your phone number.

2) Does God know EVERYBODY'S cell phone number?  (Never mind all phone numbers.)  About 650 million cell phones were sold last year.  At 40 bits per phone number, that means that God (or the Intelligent Designer) must have at least 40*650 million or 26 GIGABITS of information in His mind just to know the numbers of the new cell phones that were sold last year.  The figures will be much worse for ALL phone numbers, land line and cell.

3) What is Dembski's Upper Probability Bound?  That is how much information can something contain before it's effectively impossible to achieve without a process like evolution?  About 150 bits!

Therefore, by Dembski's own criteria, Gods and Intelligent Designers of any stripe are impossible unless they somehow evolved.  And if you're not a Mormon, you don't believe that Gods or Inteligent Designers evolve.  QED

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,13:52   

Zardoz:

You come so close, yet you keep bouncing off.

Quote
I cannot accept that chaotic disorganized mutations can produce the vast diversity and stunning technological complexity of life as we know it.

But of course, what we see wasn't *produced* by "disorganized mutations", any more than it was produced by the atoms and elements of which they're composed. What produces things is a *feedback PROCESS*. The mutations are only part of the raw materials that the process uses.

Quote
You may argue that random mutation plus natural selection somehow rises above chaos, but I don't buy it.

Selection is a process. Here's an offhand analogy: Imagine that you need to know how to pronounce a word. You consult a dictionary, and in a minute or two find the word and learn the pronunciation. Now I come along and say "Wait a minute. There are 500,000 words in that dictionary. NO WAY you could have found just the one you were looking for in only a minute or two."

You might respond: Aha, I had a process. As it happens, the words are in a special order, and I happen to know that order. And because this process reduces the scope of the task by several orders of magnitude, it was entirely manageable.

To which I respond: You might make the fatuous CLAIM that your method somehow rises above just guessing and faking that you found the word that fast, but I'm not buying it.

And what can you say? Are you going to concede that my ignorance is more plausible than your knowledge, and admit you were faking? If I repeat "Nope, I just don't buy it" enough times, are you going to start doubting how dictionaries work?

Quote
The numerical probability is beyond astronomical that a series of random mutations can design a Lion or a rose bush

Because, again, the mutations don't design anything. The process of SELECTION designs things. You ALMOST noticed selection, but just couldn't quite clear that hurdle. The idea of the words in the dictionary being in some knowable order just isn't plausible to you.

Quote
Nope, sorry. For me Occam's Razor rules out evolution because life as we know it would require millions of miracles happening on a scale beyond imagining, whereas a designer would only require one miracle.


Nope, sorry, For me, the idea that you could find one word out of 500,000 in a minute requires a miracle on a scale beyond imagining. You must have been lying. This whole idea of method and process is something I simply can't accept. MAGIC, now, that's simple. And what makes it simple is that there's no method or process at all. You just SAY it's true and POOF it's true. Things are so much easier when you just get to make them up.

  
djmullen



Posts: 327
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,13:54   

Zardoz: "... if we go all the way back to the very first life on urth we are confronted with no less of a magical event if you postulate that matter self organized into a cell that was programmed to replicate."

djmullen: One of the sure signs of a creationist is their insistence that the first living thing was a cell.  Usually they hold up a modern cell, which is the product of about four billion years of evolution, and say something like, "What are the odds of something this complex happening by chance?"

The problem is that nobody but creationists believe that the first living thing was a modern cell.  Most theories today involve either a simple polymer (such as RNA, proteins or something similar) that manages to reproduce itself or a very tiny "cell" containing several chemicals that catalyze each other and thus reproduce.  

Once you have a population of genetic self reproducers, evolution begins automatically when the first copying error is made and it's Katie bar the door as far as complexity and diversity is concerned from then on.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,14:00   

djmullen:

I already provided a link to an *entire book* about abiogenesis. I like to do that because it helps separate out the flavor of creationist we're talking about. If Zardoz continues to ignore the link, we'll have a certain species identified: those who defend incorrect claims simply by remaining ignorant of the refutations.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,14:52   

Quote
Just like if you asked me how did Trump Towers come into existence and I answered "Donald Trump had his people build it". It may not be a detailed explanation, but it is nevertheless an explanation and a true one at that.
It's only an explanation insofar as we already know the mechanisms by which "Donald Trump's people" build things. If I ask you how the rings of Saturn came into existence, and you tell me "Donald Trump had his people make them", you'll pardon my skepticism if I want to know a little bit about the how and when.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,17:36   

Zardoz, I don' think you and I will agree on much when it comes to the subject at hand, but for someone who does not buy all this evolution stuff you have been a very good sport about it in your posts here.

Cheers!

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Inoculated Mind



Posts: 16
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2006,19:42   

I've got an interesting curiosity question for the ID folks who have bravely come over here to engage in discussion free of DaveScot's ego:

One of the "irreducibly complex" biochemical systems claimed by Behe to be un-evolvable is the immune system. However, many diseases such as HIV and Malaria, etc etc, very cleverly undermine the supposedly-designed immune system, and fit Behe's definition of irreducible complexity as well. My question is, given that these structures that give rise to disease meet the IC criteria as defined by Behe, what cause would you have to reject the conclusion that they were also designed, like the flagellum?
Then again, you may not reject the conclusion that they were designed, so then my question to you would be, how do you then avoid the inescapable conclusion, therefore, that this designer created these diseases and that it is a wicked entity?

It might help to consider what you would think if you had learned that a foreign dictator had created a biowarfare disease (based upon knowledge of the immune system) that subdued our immune systems and "accidentally" released it into the world. ???

  
stevestory



Posts: 8994
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2006,02:25   

I think it was someone in Slate magazine who said that's one of the theological pitfalls of ID--it changes god from sad witness to the Fall of Man™, into an active engineer of evil machines.

   
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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