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

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

Pages: (16) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,22:40    Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,20:02) I just did not think her arguments were compelling enough. And, uh, we should give a flying #### what you think because . . . . ? -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Serendipity Posts: 28 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,23:41    Quote (Mike PSS @ Jan. 23 2007,20:59) Hello, Avocationist. Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,16:22) Last but not least, here is an example of just one uncalled for remark that shows relentless negativity and prejudice aforehand:     Quote I also noticed it went unrefuted (as should be). Has it occurred to anyone here that I've spent hours on this, and that I have not yet even gotten to the real questions, and furthermore, why in the world would I refute his discussion about the meaning of thermodynamics? There was not anything to refute. Entropy, dear - a state variable of thermodynamics. There is nothing to refute - that is why I said "as should be". What Mike wrote in the other thread was accurate. It was not a misrepresentation nor a restating of what entropy *could be*. So of course you had NOTHING to refute. That was the point of my statement. You would actually have to have MORE than a few hours knowledge of thermodynamics. Serendipity. -------------- Without question or false modesty, no success has owed more to serendipity than ours. (Fischer)

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,23:48    My dictionary has about 5 definitions of entropy, including the general winding down of the universe. This is a common type of usage. What was wrong with my using it?

creeky belly Posts: 205 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,00:36    By the common view of the SLOT, I assume you mean the general: "Things don't go from disorder to order" The second law in general is: "A closed system with a specific internal energy will tend to relax (each subsystem will approach the average internal energy) and will occupy the most probable state." Entropy itself is a function of the internal energy of the system, the volume the system occupies, and the number of particles in the system. It's a dimensionless number, it has no units (like meters, or degrees Celsius). Let's say system A has 6 possible states, system B has 10, possible states, then there are 60 (6x10) possible states for the two together, AB, easy enough. The entropy of a system is the natural logarithm of the number of states. It turns the total states from a multiplicative quantity (6x10) into an additive quanitity ( ln(6x10) = ln(6)+ln(10) ). The total number of states can be calculated from classical and quantum mechanics. I won't go into the details here (relates to something called phase volume), since it doesn't have much bearing on the point I'm trying to make. The second law says that the number of states in A will increase and the number of states in B will decrease until they come to an equal quanitity (6->8  10->8). The total number of states then becomes (8x8) = 64, thus the total entropy will then go from ln( 60 ) to ln ( 64 ). Notice that the entropy of B actually decreases in the process, from ln(10) ->ln(8), which you might think violates the second law, but since B is not in thermal equilibrium with A, this is perfectly legal. edit - added phase volume info edit - removed old tag

k.e. Posts: 40 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,00:37    Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,23:48) My dictionary has about 5 definitions of entropy, including the general winding down of the universe. This is a common type of usage. What was wrong with my using it? Without understanding the scientific method, explosive logic, or having completed (and demonstrated an understanding) a formal course in one of the science disciplines that uses entropy as a physical measure or by observing and confirming that quantity, you may as well compete in the 'Tour de France' by correspondence.....using a dictionary instead of a bike. I'm sorry, but most if not all of the creationists I have come across have such a poor understanding of the difference between cold hard facts and fiction that simplest tests for either  go in one ear and out the other. Language for them is just a means for propaganda not a method to communicate an understanding of objective reality. Many scientists simply do not grasp that creationists are completely unaware of the process or the simplest rules for doing actual science. And make the mistake that creationists, due to their pathological inability to distinguish between a logical truth and untruth as a result of living in a magical reality where fiction IS fact, could benefit from a logical explanation of how scientific conclusions are made. Creationists don't even know the first move in a game they don't understand the rules of. The one thing creationists all have in common is the ability to sound very convincing at making fiction facts or what belongs to Caesar, God's and vice versa. Avo. I suggest you devise an experiment to test for g$d then sit back and wait, when you get the results and you don't like them ......wait some more. Just for the excercise how would you test for g$d? I can give you plenty of examples if you want.

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,00:44    Thank you, Creekybelly, Your post was informative, and I had a couple of questions, but I will not discuss it here. Does this mean I am banned from Paley's thread?

k.e. Posts: 40 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,01:01    Oh what a shame. (snicker) So that means you are not going to convince a bunch of heathens here the error of our wicked wicked ways and get a free ticket into heaven? Oh yeah of little faith. Here Avo. try the Oliver Sacks g$d test. Quote Boarding school cured Oliver of religious belief. As a test of God's power, he planted two rows of radishes, and prayed for God to blast one and make the other flourish. When they grew up identically, he was confirmed in his unbelief and abandonment. School, he says, affected his capacity for bonding, belief and belonging. "On the other hand, there can be too much belonging and belief - look at present-day America, with its religious fanaticism." from here:- Seeing double

creeky belly Posts: 205 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,01:07    Personally, I think the SLOT discussion would be better suited on this thread, but I don't think you're forced to post only here. The LUCA thread seems to have deteriorated into GoP and his counterparts bumping it every once in a while, and I think it helps focus the discussion if we're all on the same page, literally. Mike probably has more information on the chemical aspects of Entropy, and I believe there was an abiogenesis thread discussing chemical potentials. Personally, I'm curious in what manner you're interested in applying the 2nd law. Is it abiogenesis, or evolution, or genetic information, or even something as general as having a universe that isn't in thermal equilibrium?

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,02:20    Quote Wesley, I'm going thru the list you linked, and some display bad behavior, but some are not that unreasonable. There is some sense in comparing this situation to other political situations that have occurred. There WAS a time when Darwin's new theory was utilized by certain groups to promote eugenics. The theory DOES lend itself to that. It's a sensitive spot and an historical mistake for which modern theorists should not be fried, it's just a part of history. And, equally, religions have used scripture to excuse their bad acts, so it is not unique to NDE. I'm angry with Jonathan Wells because I bought his book a few years ago (before I ever heard the term ID) and he promised in his book cover that he was completely secular, and had accepted evolution at least in high school and I think early college. However, it turns out he was a man on a mission from the beginning. It is true that I like his book and that he kept religion out of it, but I don't appreciate being lied to. I did say that once on UD, and got no comment. At least I didn't get banned! But some of the comparisons there are not quite what you make out. Johnson (he's a fundie, his kind worry me) did not really compare Gould to Gorbachev, but rather he compared their two situations, which is not the same thing. Ditto Dembski comparison of Darwinisn and Soviet regime. There IS a hegemony, and it would be a loss/disruption to change it. What example had anything to do with Darwin's ideas being misused? This one had Hartwig comparing the tactics of "Darwinists" to Nazi occupiers. Meyer's fake German accent wasn't a disquisition on analogies of ideas. Wells on Soviet collapse wasn't discussing the ideas, but rather invoking the rapidity of the Soviet collapse. Johnson compares Gould to Gorbachev. Again, no discussion of the ideas. Is this really not a comparison: "Gould, like Gorbachev, deserves immense credit for bringing glasnost to a closed society of dogmatists. And, like Gorbachev, he lives on as a sad reminder of what happens to those who lack the nerve to make a clean break with a dying theory." ? Dembski compares "Darwinism" to the Soviet empire. No discussion of the ideas again. The bit about "hegemony" doesn't provide an excuse for Dembski's bad rhetorical behavior here. Johnson compares "methodological naturalism" to the Soviet collapse. MN doesn't even have the purported link to bad systems of government as asserted for "Darwinism". Johnson compares "Darwinism" to apparent impregnability of the Soviet empire. No discussion of the ideas. Calvert, "naturalism", Nazis, and KCFS. While Calvert does invoke the "historical link" idea, that isn't what his invidious comparison of KCFS and Nazis is about; that is about tactics. Dembski compares ID critics to Napoleon. Surely you aren't suggesting that Napoleon was motivated by "Darwinism"? Dembski compares ID critics to McCarthyites. McCarthyism is not seriously attributed to the influence of "Darwinism" by anyone. Dembski calls Forrest a "leftist". This was about an asserted propensity to "diatribe", not about the history of ideas. Johnson compares "Darwinists" to Napoleon's Army. Once again, the historical link angle is unavailable as a dodge. Calvert compares "Naturalists" to Nazi and Soviet regimes, but on tactics, not the historical link assertion. OK, I've run out of steam to individually characterize every item in the thread, but the point is that the claimed excuse of discussing "Darwinism"'s purported cultural link to various bad forms of government simply is not the issue in the listed examples. Even in the one item that did include some mention of a historical link, the actual invidious comparison was actually based on supposed similarities of tactics. So I am going to consider Avocationist's claim to be unsubstantiated unless and until a specific example is identified and shown to actually meet the circumstances of the excuse. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,03:48    Hi Avocationist, A while back you said: Quote Hello Louis, Yes, you lead the pack. No I am not thin-skinned and I rarely get annoyed in real life or on line. You have called me a liar, you have called me loathsome, and a subverter of science. I happen to have a tremendous amount of love for science, and respect. I hate to trouble you with so petty a thing as reality, but if you would be so kind could you please point to where I have actually said that you are a liar, loathsome and a subverter of science. Links, quotes, permalinks will do. Just provide the actual evidence that I actually said this please. Thanks very much Louis -------------- Bye.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,03:56    Quote The theory of ID states that certain features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design. In scientific terms that's a conjecture or a hypothesis at best. The 'theory of intelligent design' needs to include what the designer did, and in more detail than 'he designed things somehow'. For example it needs to include whether evolution was frontloaded at some point, or if the designer intervened whenever anything needed doing. It needs to take a position one way or the other on common descent, and most likely the age of the earth. If the earth is young it needs to explain how x number of kinds could evolve into x number of species in a few thousand years. If life was frontloaded it needs to explain how the unused information was not degraded by mutation, and in more detail than something like 'some kind of fantastic error correction mechanism'. Most importantly this theory needs to make predictions, and by predictions I mean the outcome of future investigations, not what will happen in evolution in the future. These also can't be incredibly vague, ('layers of information', something we already know, or something that was predicted years ago based on evolution (the whole silent mutations can affect protein function thing, IC).

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,05:05    Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,23:48) My dictionary has about 5 definitions of entropy, including the general winding down of the universe. This is a common type of usage. What was wrong with my using it? The big problem with your use of entropy, is that you wish to refer to some properties of entropy in a closed system.  the Earth is not a closed system, it has the sun pumping in loads of energy 24hours a day, and hence the properties of entropy in a closed system don't apply...

Serendipity Posts: 28 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,05:26    Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,23:48) Quote My dictionary has about 5 definitions of entropy, including the general winding down of the universe. This is a common type of usage. What was wrong with my using it? So you know the significant difference between mechanical, chemical, statistical, quantum, informational entropy (ect)? Entropy is defined by its equation. It is a quantitative measure of a system based on the probability of a set of results <insert equations here>. Entropy IS a mathematical variable, often misused based on semantical definitions (usually metaphorical) to serve purposes it was never designed to serve. It's not rocket science - though rocket science employs it. Serendipity. -------------- Without question or false modesty, no success has owed more to serendipity than ours. (Fischer)

demallien Posts: 79 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,05:41    Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,20:02) What the theory of evolution needs is a mechanism. That's the problem. No mechanism to account for what we see. But there is progress. People are looking at emergent properties, and self-organizing properties. I don't think that's enough, but it's a big help. Look, Avocationist, I don't know if you realise it, but this statement alone just goes to show how ignorant you are about evolution as a theory.  You need to learn a bit about it before you try to criticise it - seriously! To help you on your way,  here's a little primer on the mechanisms involved in evolution: 1) Random mutation: Check!  Random mutation has been observed both in the lab, and in the wild.  It happens, it's a fact.  Also note that in sexual species, the sexual recombination of genes from parents to offspring can bring in a far wider range of gene combinations far faster than just random mutation alone (hence life's apparent preference for sexual reproduction - but I digress) 2) Inheritence of traits: Check!  Since the discovery of DNA, we now understand how genetic information is passed from one generation to the next.  No mystery there. 3) Natural Selection: Check! That less fit organisms have less success in reproducing is a widely observed phenomenon. This is all that's needed for evolution to work, and each of these mechanisms has been observed, both in the lab, and in the wild. Now, you are probably about to object that that doesn't explain how useful new traits can arise out of random mutation, as if by magic.  Again, there's no secret - if you try enough combinations, you're going to hit on the solution to the problem.  Genetic algorithms, such as evolution, are just an optimisation algorithm.  You can read up on the theory of optimisation algorithms in any good computer science textbook.  Again, it's all proven stuff. If you're still not convinced, we can show that all of this stuff actually works in the real world, by watching bacteria develop resistence to drugs.  We see the bacteria develop new traits that protect them from the drugs, with no detectable outside interference. So anyway, back to the point.  Your claim that there is no mechanism for evolution is just plain false.  You need to do a bit of research before shooting your mouth off, because you just make yourself look like a goose.

Serendipity Posts: 28 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,05:42    Quote (creeky belly @ Jan. 24 2007,00:36) Hello, Belleh! Quote The entropy of a system is the natural logarithm of the number of states. It turns the total states from a multiplicative quantity (6x10) into an additive quanitity ( ln(6x10) = ln(6)+ln(10) ). The total number of states can be calculated from classical and quantum mechanics. I won't go into the details here (relates to something called phase volume), since it doesn't have much bearing on the point I'm trying to make. Or V[P]= -logbP measuring the values of two probable space. Quote which you might think violates the second law, but since B is not in thermal equilibrium with A, this is perfectly legal. "Violation" is easily misused (often by those who are using it for the purpose it was never designed for). An increased amount of disorder would render a low entropic reading. Lesser equilibrium, low entropy. Less complex, higher entropy. Serendipity. PS: Say hi to Harps for me -------------- Without question or false modesty, no success has owed more to serendipity than ours. (Fischer)

Cedric Katesby Posts: 55 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,05:46    I said...                         Quote I am only interested in your scientific version of ID. If you told somebody at a party that you supported ID and you wanted to sate their curiosity then how would you make a simple, concise scientific argument for ID in sixty seconds/two minutes/ whatever? What Advocationist gave me in reply was...                         Quote The theory of ID states that certain features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design. Advocationist, I'm not sure that we understand each other.  Allow me to rephrase my request. I am not interested in the "theory" of ID as it is described in some book somewhere.  If I wanted to know what " The theory of ID states..." then I could just look it up on the Internet and deal with the competing versions out there. I am interested in your scientific argument for ID. Your argument. Your understanding of ID. Yours. Advocationist's personal (in her own words and thought processes) understanding of a scientific argument for ID. Just yours!! Yours!!! If you want to borrow definitions and terms from other sources to help you phrase your thoughts, by all means go ahead.  If you want to hitch your wagon to some classic argument for ID, then by all means do so.  But attach yourself to such an argument because you FULLY UNDERSTAND it and LIKE it and AGREE with it. Be prepared to defend it.  No wriggling around. No abandoning ship if and when people point out potential flaws in your version (adopted or otherwise) of a scientific argument for ID. Oh, and when I asked you to pretend you were at a party and making an argument for ID, I was (foolishly?) hoping for a little substance in your opening statement. Instead I get a brusque one-liner that could fit on a fortune cookie.   Something of a letdown. How about fleshing out your argument a little? Perhaps a brief mention on the mechanics of the ID theory? Maybe you could show how ID could be falsified? Or a layman's example of how ID works in the real world? Just suggestions, of course. It's your argument, so you get to decide how to present it. Yet if anybody was going to make a scientific argument about any Theory at all (Plate Tectonics, Germ Theory, etc) then they would probably start there. Just a couple of paragraphs written in clear, easy-to-follow terms that you would perhaps use at a party somewhere. Your scientific argument for ID, please. (waits patiently)

don_quixote Posts: 110 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,07:06    {at a party} Me: So, the theory of I.D., eh? What do you mean by that? Avo: The theory of ID states that certain features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design. Me: Fascinating! Which ones? And why? ...... come on Avo, keep me interested and I might buy you a drink !

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,07:19    Judging by current behaviour I reckon that I can confidently say that I will buy everyone at ATBC a drink* if we get a coherent expression of Avocationist's ideas anout ID. Louis *Subject to availablity -------------- Bye.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,07:28    Quote (Louis @ Jan. 24 2007,07:19) Judging by current behaviour I reckon that I can confidently say that I will buy everyone at ATBC a drink* if we get a coherent expression of Avocationist's ideas anout ID. Alas, Avo has no idea, literally not a clue, what ID is or what it is all about.  She seems to think it somehow has something to do with her idiotic New Age touchy-feelie "look at my aura" crapola. That's why the IDers think she is just as nutty as we do.  (shrug) -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Serendipity Posts: 28 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,08:31    The Intelligent Design Movement is based largely upon its promoters who use their abilities to construct an argument which appears to be full-proof and simplistic that it gives those who adopt it the misconception that it must be factual. However, the argument is based upon the world-view of the promoter with the assumption that others will share that world-view. However that world-view does not correspond with naturalism that applies science. Alas, this does not stop ID'ers from adopting a naturalistic approach to try and support a supernatural proposition. Dembski's bacterial flagellum is a prime example. Applying his specified complexity equation of a=10^-150; .. X is complex if P(X)<a [ Dembski, W. (2001). No Free Lunch. USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc. pp. 18-22. ] Dembski argues this stochastic formalism (nondeterminism) equation where X is complex based on naturalistic probability cannot logically comply with Darwinism mechanisms. However he's assuming that all naturalistic processes are accounted for. I could logically apply Godel to his system of axioms rendering it null and void but then thats just too easy. ID never meant for this to be easy - to look easy, sure - but to be easy, not. Which leads to my point: applying an equation based on perceived complexity (negating that he redefines complexity itself) Dembski is able to offer what appears to be a valid argument that complex systems appear not to be accounted for using standard mechanisms. However, what he is doing is changing the structure of those standard mechanisms to fit his equation. What this inevitably does is woo the less prudent and less skeptical into believing that the argument is valid (lest I again refer to Godel). What this inevitably does is create the AFDave's and Avocationists into supporting half cocked ideas because "it looked good in print". It supported their paradigm therefore its worthy of being accepted - yet unworthy of being fully scrutinised. Now before I am accused of being a bully and allowing for others to feel victimised, I will state this for ID. If an intelligent designer does exist it is possibility within the best interest of humanity to have this substantiated. It is in the best interest of humanity because it allows for a sense of immortality, death merely become a transitional process as opposed to a conclusion of a process. Therefore if a logical argument can be given for intelligent design then in all likelihood it will be accepted. But until then, I am subjected to mediocre philosophers with a simpletons grasp of science attempting to posit rigmorale to a person who has studied indepth - and I find that insulting. Serendipity. -------------- Without question or false modesty, no success has owed more to serendipity than ours. (Fischer)

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,10:17    Louis, Perhaps this post contributed in some way to Avocationist's notions about you? -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,10:26    Quote Your theory is that some things are best explained by your theory?  Um... heh heh. It reminds me of Avo's previous run here at AtBC. When asked for predictions that ID could make, her response was (paraphrasing here; I don't have time to look up the original): "I predict that future experiments will validate ID" Don't quit your day job, Avo. I don't think this science thing is going to work out for you. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,10:27    Louis, Shhhhhhh behave. It'll think we're fundamentalists. Oh wait. It already does. Corn's high this yeeeah. {spits baccy} Personally I curious as to why when one troll disappears we get another right on its heels. Some people, no names mentioned, no fingers pointed, use the internet as a sheild between themselves and the deep loathfulness of their behaviour. All we are going to get from him/her/it is a lot of sanctimonious abuse, claims of "independent thinking" (when what Avocationist is doing is manifestly neither independent or thinking), a large dose of intellectual dishonesty all coupled with the usual hand waving, lies, lack of understanding and bullshit. Nothing to commend, I just don't like liars. Especially liars who are trying to subvert science. Now, again, I dropped by to commiserate a little because of the banning business at UD, which I think I have made pretty clear I dislike. I got jumped by Lenny with "Aha! Here's a creationist - so explain to me creationist, why they wrote what they did in the wedge document. I'll explain Lenny, when you personally account for the eugenics movement as it abuse Darwin's theory in the 1930s - 1950s in this country and Europe, OK? I am going to make individual assignments to the people here. 1. Let me know why you disagree with Mike Gene's essay on the flagellum, and give some good arguments about how its assembly process evolved. 2. I want thoughtful critiques of separate chapters of Denton's book, Evolution in crisis. 3. Where did Berlinski go wrong in his assessment of the Nilsson-Pelger paper? 4. A full critique of Dembski's response to The Flagellum Unspun. And I expect it all back by this evening, or I'll start questioning your motives, your character, and your sanity.

Occam's Toothbrush Posts: 555 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,10:44    Quote The theory of ID states that certain features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design. Pathetic.  How about,             Quote The theory of gravity states that the tendency of objects to be attracted toward one another is best explained as being the result of gravity. There.  I've explained nothing, I've claimed nothing, and no matter what experimental result you get, I can always say, "well, that's gravity at work."   Or maybe   Quote The theory of evolution states that certain features of biological organisms are best explained as being the result of evolution. And it must be true, because we've proven Lamarckianism to be incorrect!  Nothing wrong with assuming there are only two possible choices, is there? If that was all evolutionists had to offer we'd be laughed out of the universities.  Perhaps you should consider why your ideas are so poorly received by virtually everyone who knows anything about biology.  It's not them, it's you. Go back to church; you obviously have nothing to offer to science or discussions of science, or any intention of doing so.  That you cannot resist manufacturing bogus sciencey support for your superstitious beliefs isn't science's problem; it's yours. -------------- "Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers ------ "You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

don_quixote Posts: 110 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,10:54    Sheesh, I only asked you to expand your theory a bit because I was interested in hearing more. Why can't you tell me which "features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design", and why? That is what you state your theory of I.D. to be, isn't it? What would you think of someone who said they believed in the veracity of a scientific theory, but then couldn't tell you anything more about it?

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,11:00    Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,11:27) 4. A full critique of Dembski's response to The Flagellum Unspun. I can get you started on this one right now.  Dembski asks: Quote Why is intelligent design held to such a high standard when that standard is absent from the rest of the empirical sciences (nowhere else in the natural sciences is strict logical possibility/impossibility enforced, not even with the best established physical laws like the first and second laws of thermodynamics)? His assumption that the theory of evolution is not held to "strict logical possibility/impossibility" is incorrect.  He is arguing, in effect, that evolution is not falsifiable.  In reality, there are many ways to test the falsifiability of the ToE.  And we do not think it is too much to ask the same of ID, if it is to be accepted as a scientific hypothesis. So, what hypothetical tests would you like to present for ID? -------------- Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37) Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late. Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,11:04    Avo/Wes AH the old "reading for comprehension" problem. Et tu it would appear Wesley. 1) The "Someone no names mentioned" etc is GoP, not Avocationist. This is easily understandable from something we grown ups call "the context". It's also why I seriously dislike separating one post (or quote or whatever) from the context if that context forms part of an ongoing conversation. I trust GoP as far as I could spit a solid metric tonne of baccy, and certainly don't think it beyond him to fake multiple posting personalities for the purpose of trolling. He's not only already done it but already ADMITTED it. Forgive me for being the only one to think this loathsome. Tchoh, the standards of the youth of today If Avocationist is not a troll, and instead a sincere and interested conversationalist then I 100% totally retract my description of him/her/it as a troll and apologise unreservedly. In this instance I was wrong, obviously dependant on the above being the case. Do I need to explain the use of the conditional in the above? 2) The thing I was describing as loathsome was the behaviour of people who do such trolling, not Avocationist. A relatively simple reading of the sentence reveals that. Nowhere was a phrase that could in any reasonable sense be parsed as "Avocationist is loathsome". 3) Let's see what I actually wrote: Quote P.S. Serendipity, based on experience of Avocationist thus far, no we are not going to see any evidence of ID. All we are going to get from him/her/it is a lot of sanctimonious abuse, claims of "independent thinking" (when what Avocationist is doing is manifestly neither independent or thinking), a large dose of intellectual dishonesty all coupled with the usual hand waving, lies, lack of understanding and bullshit. Of course I am extremely happy to be proven wrong about this (those like Avocationist never get this part) but what proving me wrong requires is actually knowing what they are talking about and being intellectually deft and honest enough to form a coherent argument (another thing they don't get). Based on 14/15 years of dealing with creationists on a nearly daily basis, my bet would not be an optimistic one. I live in hope of being proven wrong about that though, it did happen a couple of times, less than 1% of the total though. Oh well. Bolding mine. Future tense people, future tense. Not "Avocationist is a liar", not "Avocationist is a subverter of science". This is a prediction based on current behaviour, NOT an accustation. Colour me amazed that, uncharitable though it is, intelligent people can't tell the difference. Amazingly enough although I am all for outreach, education, promoting science (I actually do this moderately successfully in my spare time as it happens) I am not a massive fan of calling shit shinola or vice versa. Do you advocate hypocrisy in the face of unreason? I know I don't. Oh and of course, my open and upfront admission that I am willing to be proven wrong on the basis of the evidence makes me the intolerant one, right? Told you that Avocationist wouldn't get it didn't I. 4) The "spits baccy" comment was about Avocationist's direct and unjustified leap for his/her/its high horse on being challenged or indeed spoken to in any way shape or form. It was a joke about the attitude of IDCists and their ilk to skeptics, the joke being that they accuse us of fundamentalism. Projection on their part, not denial on ours. The funny bit being that the "fundy persecution complex" emerges BEFORE the persecution, not after it. Anything that can then be interpreted as persecution (whether it is or not) is used as evidence. A point I think, Wesley, you've made yourself. The second part of the joke regarding the poking stick was again, a joke about US, as it were. We the body skeptic/rationalist looking for a victim to poke. Not that a) we are so desirous, or b) we actually do this. It's a parody, a pastiche. Geddit? 5) The comment about commendation. Note Avo's snip from context. ####, note all lines snipped from ALL context. Context you will note that proves that the Wes/Avo interpretation is not the correct one. That comment is a reply to Serendipity commending my arguing with creationists for 14/15 years. I said that it doesn't deserve commendation of any kind (it doesn't) and commented that my motivation for doing this was because I don't like liars and people who are lying deliberately to subvert science. This is the closest thing I can think of that Avo could take as directed at him/her/it. It isn't directed at him/her/it, but hey, what's a small matter of reality between friends? It is directed at the Hams, Hovinds etc of this world, people PROVEN to be dishonestly attempting to subvert science and shoehorn it into their own false beliefs. Sorry, should I equivocate about this to spare your blushes? Pardon me if I don;t think I should. As can be told from following the CONTEXT of the conversation (yes I know all that tiresome reading, sorry) the comment is a general one. Part of a series of comments I have already openly expressed that I hope I am wrong about. PROVE ME WRONG, don't whine about it. If this is the best "evidence" you can come up with, colour sincerely unimpressed. Tell you what, if you aren't so quick on your leap for your high horse, I'll be less quick about my pessimism regarding your ability to hold a rational conversation. Sound fair? Louis -------------- Bye.

Serendipity Posts: 28 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,11:05    Quote I am going to make individual assignments to the people here. You want them before or after you answer what has been asked of you since this thread began? Quote A full critique of Dembski's response to The Flagellum Unspun. I gave a mathematical (albeit layman) critique of Dembski's usage of his own mathematical formula in application to the complexity of flagellum. Does it need to be expanded more for your benefit? Quote And I expect it all back by this evening, or I'll start questioning your motives, your character, and your sanity. So far your persona has been the "victim" the "informed teacher" the "ordinary guy" now the "lawyer". Before you ask, this is what I have to deduce from clients everyday. Motives: To get you to elaborate on Intelligent Design - why this thread was originally started. Character: Totally emotive requirement - merely the topic is what is needed. Discussions can get lost in "how could you say that about me? What kind of beast are you?" diatribe. So it's actually NOT important unless it ADDS to the ORIGINAL discussion. Sanity: A legal terminology which has no meaning to a discussion board. So... moving right along.. what evidence is there for Intelligent Design? Serendipity. -------------- Without question or false modesty, no success has owed more to serendipity than ours. (Fischer)

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,11:11    Avocationist, I'd like to thank you for reducing the ID position to its essence.  If we strip away the obfuscation, wishful thinking and wilful attempts to mislead used by the likes of Behe, Dembski et al, it's always been driven by appeals to personal incredulity.  "But it just doesn't make sense!  Isn't it obvious that this couldn't have arisen without supernatural assistance?" The natural world doesn't care whether its behaviour makes sense to you, or to anybody else.  It just keeps on doing what it's doing, without even pausing to consider whether you like it or not.  What's more, we know that many of its workings are completely contrary to common sense (relativity and quantum mechanics, for example). If you don't like the theory of evolution, no-one is going to be impressed with the nasty taste in your mouth.  What's your evidence for not liking it? -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,11:14    Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,15:22) Lenny, No I can't cite an example of a textbook. I'm not going to that level of research for every comment I make and I don't have any on hand. your pathetic level of detail? Quote Back to Louis, You just can't lump anyone who disagrees with neoDarwinism into a group whose ideas are no good. Life just isn't that simple. Science would NEVER progress if you and yours got your way!!! Yes you can and yes it would. Would you care to deconstruct this comment with me? Quote I'm angry with Jonathan Wells because I bought his book a few years ago (before I ever heard the term ID) and he promised in his book cover that he was completely secular, and had accepted evolution at least in high school and I think early college. However, it turns out he was a man on a mission from the beginning. It is true that I like his book and that he kept religion out of it, but I don't appreciate being lied to. Did you ever think that ... no, never mind. Quote Yes, I saw Febble post there, ... Here is one thing she said: You guess at random, but when you get a correct answer for one slot, you get to keep it. You replicate what works, in other words. You don’t start from scratch each time. That is a point of contention. How to keep answers which have no way of being correct until future answers arrive, such as with IC systems. Also, I am pretty sure that she is twisting Dembski's words to give intelligence a meaning everyone knows he does not intend. What meaning could he possibly have which isn't crystal clear? It's one of the two words in his "theory". You'd think hi definition would be pretty unambiguous. This is a weak reply. Quote BWE,     Quote I second this. My pent up rage toward xians is in a pretty small pen and doesn't need much tending but I am mildly offended by a group making claims about god, heaven, morality and the like as if they know for sure. Really? I wonder who said this: Just when I think I've got ahold of a true idea, I later realize that we just have no way of knowing much of anything. Or maybe we do, but when we think we know, we often don't, and there isn't much of a way to tell that we're in an ignorant state of false ideas. If we're lucky, we figure it out after the fact. Yes, I think there is an obvious need for God as an explanation for existence. There is no other explanation, although what the nature of this God might be is up for conjecture. As to whether the universe has purpose, I tend to sort of think so, but we might be out of our ken. Boy, so do I. It doesn't google well. What the Heck does it have to do with my statement? You are aware that if you hadn't recieved xian ideas from OTHER PEOPLE, you wouldn't have recieved them at all? -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

Pages: (16) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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