Printable Version of Topic
-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: Jerry Don Bauer's Thread started by Wesley R. Elsberry
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 21 2012,13:39
Thank you, Dr. Wesley.
Hopefully I can get caught up in the other thread before this one moves forward.
Posted by: Richardthughes on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, No, please stay here!
Posted by: Dr.GH on Nov. 21 2012,21:41
Jerry Don Bauer???
I am feeling old.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 25 2012,10:04
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 21 2012,21:41) | Jerry Don Bauer???
I am feeling old. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Doc Bill on Nov. 25 2012,10:51
Simple discussion.
Items 1 through 7 are total bullshit.
End of discussion.
Next thread.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Care to expand and explain, point by point, why this is the case?
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.” ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
LOL! Sure thing.
---------------------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: ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...and of course your religion get to decide what is truth, right?
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 1) ID is a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts. That's it. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------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.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Of course, when those same tenets are used in ID, often it is termed to not be science anymore by many detractors. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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." ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You mean there is tons of God-Of-The-Gaps bullshit. But we understand.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- So..... let's discuss. ---------------------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.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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!' ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You seem quite adept at discussion thus far....*wink*
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on 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 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on 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 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then what's with the Creationist stupidity "there are no transitional fossils" nonsense?
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Nov. 25 2012,17:33
Mr Bauer, could you please define what you mean when you say "transitional fossil" - what features should it have?
Posted by: The whole truth on 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.
Posted by: The whole truth on 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.
Posted by: Doc Bill on 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.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sure, but so's the horse he rode in on.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Doc Bill on 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!
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Nov. 26 2012,01:27
I doubt it's FL: No "folksy" language, no witnessing.
Posted by: The whole truth on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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!' ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You seem quite adept at discussion thus far....*wink* ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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?
Posted by: Doc Bill on 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?
Posted by: Southstar on Nov. 26 2012,07:36
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04) | ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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".
Posted by: OgreMkV on 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.
Posted by: fnxtr on 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.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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*
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Right....I understand that you cannot address the discussion rationally......It's OK.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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* ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jerry,
Not all particles are entangled. Your QM argument lacks coherence.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 26 2012,09:35
It's like if Henry Morris had written timecube.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 26 2012,09:39
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,09:19) | 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sorry but that's just not true. Evolution acts as a feedback loop tracking changes in the environment. If the environment is stable for long periods of time we'll see long periods of little morphological change. If the environment changes rapidly (geologically speaking) we'll see more rapid morphological change. There are clear examples of both occurrences in the fossil record.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- The Cambrian Explosion is a good example of this. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OK, so you're ignorant of all the pre-Cambrian life forms that have been discovered, i.e. the Ediacaran fauna.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tell us, what would a not fully formed animal look like?
Sorry doofus, but the fossil record 'sampling rate' is way too low to accurately record every step in a transitional sequence, especially if the environment/morphological changes are happening relatively rapidly. Scientists have known this for about two centuries now.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 26 2012,09:41
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, people who claim there is no evolution, even in drug resistance, are easy to find. Your google-fu is weak.
The "Evolution" of Antibiotic Resistance by Daniel Criswell, Ph.D.
* Dr. Daniel Criswell has a Ph.D. in Science! Molecular Biology.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 26 2012,09:53
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 26 2012,09:39) | Sorry doofus, but the fossil record 'sampling rate' is way too low to accurately record every step in a transitional sequence, especially if the environment/morphological changes are happening relatively rapidly. Scientists have known this for about two centuries now. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This!
If every organism was fossilized, we'd be sitting on nothing but fossils and none of the material from those organisms would be available to the rest of the planet.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 26 2012,10:01
[quote=The whole truth,Nov. 26 2012,02:39][/quote]
---------------------QUOTE------------------- just one of the mistakes you're making is erroneously labeling modern evolutionary theory as "Darwinism". ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, that's NOT a mistake. You guys haven't added much of anything to Darwin's initial musings for the last 150 years. Just fluff, smoke and mirrors as if you are attempting to support a faith.
We HAVE to distinguish between the legitimate science of genetics and evolution and another quirky body of thought where new organisms begin "poofing" out of previously existing ones. The latter is termed Darwinism.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- (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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My religion does NOT teach that woman was literally made from a rib, etc. Those of us who study this understand that the Bible is full of metaphor, parable and analogy. Much of it is NOT to be taken literally as you seem to think.
And I can assure you that, to those of us who do not take the teachings of evolutionary biologists seriously, it appears that at some point, man 'magically morphed' from an apeoid.
There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk.
Earnst Maers (sp??) very specifically defined a sexual species as: any two organisms that can breed and produce viable (the offspring will live), fertile (that offspring can also produce offspring) offspring.
Men and ape-like organisms simply cannot do this no matter how much time is allowed. In fact, it is just asinine from a scientific aspect to even seriously consider it.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No...LOL...that scripture does not mean that God looks like man. Nor is there anything in Darwinistic theory that would conflict with my religious beliefs. In fact, there are a few (a few but not many) Christian believers who also embrace Darwinism.
I reject it probably for the same reasons that some 90% of those in the U.S. who study it do. It's simply scientifically silly.
It's a fairytale for grownups.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 26 2012,10:13
Jerry Don seems to be exceptionally stupid and misinformed, even for a Creationist.
Posted by: Southstar on Nov. 26 2012,10:14
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,10:01) | ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Really? Did you forget to read the following research among many many others? Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome < http://http/....ttp >
"More than a century ago Darwin and Huxley posited that humans share recent common ancestors with the African great apes. Modern molecular studies have spectacularly confirmed this prediction and have refined the relationships, showing that the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and bonobo (Pan paniscus or pygmy chimpanzee) are our closest living evolutionary relatives."
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 26 2012,10:30
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,10:01) | My religion does NOT teach that woman was literally made from a rib, etc. Those of us who study this understand that the Bible is full of metaphor, parable and analogy. Much of it is NOT to be taken literally as you seem to think. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not to derail the thread, but this is a fascinating claim.
First, I have some people that you need to meet. Perhaps you can explain this concept to them. Or they can convince you that you aren't a true Christian because you don't believe that the magic book is true.
Second, which parts are literal, which parts are metaphorical... and how do you know?
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 26 2012,10:36
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 26 2012,07:36) | Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04) | ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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". ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 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-------------------
On WHAT matter? There are TONS of papers that support ID. Are you expecting to read a PDF that begins, "OK, this paper is about ID science"......You won't find any of those because ID is not in itself a separarte science. We study biology, chemistry and physics just as anyone else does.
And, if this discussion continues to fruition, I will be happy to show you all the science and math that one would ever care to see on the subject...*wink*
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 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-------------------
No, I can't think of any reason for an archeologist to employ the predictive nature of probability mathematics such as CSI. I was referring to semiotics which both bodies of thought employ.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 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-------------------
If you don't think OM exhibits intelligence, then I'll wager you have not studied the field in depth. I would suggest you begin with the double slit experiments where the presence of an intelligent observer affects how a particle behaves.
But yes, ID requires a designer, but it does NOT require that we know who/what that designer is any more than it is required that you know the design engineer of the subway system every morning before you can ride it to work in the morning.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 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-------------------
There are a TON of papers out there that support ID. I will get into a few as we progress.
However, I understand that Darwinism says nothing about abiogenesis, but here is the deal: Many people use Darwinism in their overall belief system to justify natural origins without intelligent interference. It is to the latter that I refere to when I throw out abiogenesis. It all comes together to compose a body of thought called Secular Humanism.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 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-------------------
It's just a field of study...nothing more or less. What is the theory of biology? What is the theory of chemistry? Sounds silly to even ask that, doesn't it....Doesn't mean we don't study chem and bios...etc.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 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-------------------
This is correct...ID is not, in itself, a science. It is the study of science from a different angle: We may see design in a system or artifact when YOU are not even looking for design as you study it. That's all ID is.
And you sum up science very well. I just wish it were true that Darwinists followed your advice on this. If they did, there would be no such thing as a "theory of evolution" taught to innocent young minds. A hypothesis that has never been experimentally tested to take it to the theory level, yes.....but a theory....no.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 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". ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I will get into QM design when the time is right...Don't touch that dial....
But with sudden bursts of speciation so solidly shown in the fossil record, doesn't that lend creedence to about ANY pet theory of origins other than Darwinism i.e. gradualism? :)))
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 26 2012,10:40
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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* ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jerry,
Not all particles are entangled. Your QM argument lacks coherence. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tracy:
Particles that are created at the same time in the same system become entangled. Did the big bang not create all particles in this universe at the same time? With me on that?
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 26 2012,10:42
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,07:31) | 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I didn't say anything about "drug resistant bacteria due to mutations". I said "some aspects of evolutionary processes". The particulars (or aspects) regarding mutations, drift, stasis, punctuated equilibrium, junk DNA, epigenetics, speciation, selection, extinction, adaptation, variation, convergence, recombination, gene flow, etc., etc., etc. are regularly debated ("contested") by scientists. Scientists who agree that evolution occurs don't necessarily agree on the particulars of how it occurs. Sometimes the debates can be quite contentious, such as in the recent debates about the Encode claims. That's not necessarily a bad thing though because such debates ultimately help lead to more research and a better understanding.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 26 2012,10:44
Quote (Doc Bill @ Nov. 26 2012,08:30) | 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You can find that stain on the bathroom wall at PT
I am just learning to love this new one though. surely THIS will go somewhere
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 26 2012,10:47
1) Cite (or link to) any 10 peer-reviewed papers that support ID.
2) CSI is probability mathematics now? What is the probability that I was designed then? how do you know? Calculate my probability.
3) But we know the LIMITS of the designer of a subway. If you don't know the limits of the designer, then you just assume that it can do anything (which you do). Does the designer have any limits? If yes, why? How do you know? If not, why? How do you know? Can the designer create anything? How do you know?
These are all questions that can be answered in forensics, anthropology, etc. They cannot be answered for ID. In fact, as you state, you go out of your way to avoid answering them. Which means that you aren't really doing anything but making up stories.
Again, you need to meet some people. Maybe you can convince them that they are wrong about ID and the designer or you can convince them they are wrong about ID and the designer. But you people really need to get together and come up with one notion and stick to it.
4) Have you ever heard of "punctuated equilibria"? Just out of curiosity, I mean, I know it's ancient science and all. Do you understand the concept behind the Hardy-Weinberg equation and why it's relevant to this discussion? I guess not.
BTW: You need to read this: skepticink.com/tippling/2012/11/18/the-relativity-of-wrong-asimov-of-science-and-the-fuzziness-of-right-and-wrong
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 26 2012,10:47
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,10:27) | 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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* ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 26 2012,10:48
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 26 2012,10:35) | It's like if Henry Morris had written timecube. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
while drunk and retarded
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 26 2012,10:51
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,11:01) | We HAVE to distinguish between the legitimate science of genetics and evolution and another quirky body of thought where new organisms begin "poofing" out of previously existing ones. The latter is termed Darwinism. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
we who?
do you have the moulding corpse of a scientist in your cellar?
do you think anyone gives a fuck what you think about science? I don't!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 26 2012,10:57
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,11:36) | Are you expecting to read a PDF that begins, "OK, this paper is about ID science"......You won't find any of those because ID is not in itself a separarte science. We study biology, chemistry and physics just as anyone else does.
And, if this discussion continues to fruition, I will be happy to show you all the science and math that one would ever care to see on the subject...*wink* ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeah, I am expecting to read a journal article (not just a .pdf you dipshit) that says "This supports intelligent design creationism because X, Y and Z". Or just fucking X. Or *anything*. Because you dipshits haven't ever done anything worth a shit with your intelligent design creationism except make us laugh at you for years and years and years
you don't study shit at all, not just as anyone else does but not at all. That's why you spout endless reams of horseshittery about your misconceptions and misunderstandings. the reason why you don't respond to peer review or criticism is because you are too stupid to, which is a different problem than the part about you not actually studying any fucking thing whatsoever.
we are far past fruition, fruit. please post your bibliography. or whatever "show you all the science and math" means to you. sounds creepy.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 26 2012,11:01
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 26 2012,08:48) | Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 26 2012,10:35) | It's like if Henry Morris had written timecube. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
while drunk and retarded ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Guffaw of the day. Thanks, fellow Pisces.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 26 2012,11:05
Quote (fnxtr @ 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's opens the mind to new treks--new dimensions.
Some day.....and I believe it will be in my generation--we will observe science, philosophy and theology all merge into one body of thought defined simply as: the truths of the universe.
Eureka.....I have found it!
But only fine minds able to think deeply and discard internalization of agenga theory such as Darwinism (and in many cases creationism and ID as taught by Ken Hams and the like) will be the ones able to fully grasp the concept.
Many minds will remain unevolved and unaware of even who they are as a personna because they will never aquire the ability to discover and utilize the spiritual aspect of that triunal personna.
But for those who do, at that moment, that portion of the human race will go from becoming to actually being. We will have found ourselves.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 26 2012,11:17
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 26 2012,09:41) | Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, people who claim there is no evolution, even in drug resistance, are easy to find. Your google-fu is weak.
The "Evolution" of Antibiotic Resistance by Daniel Criswell, Ph.D.
* Dr. Daniel Criswell has a Ph.D. in Science! Molecular Biology. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What, I'm supposed to go read long papers in order to support some point you are trying to make that I'm not even sure what is?
Please bring your discussion in your own words and use PDFs for referrences if you feel they are needed. I will be happy to address your posts in that format.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 26 2012,11:18
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,11:05) | Quote (fnxtr @ 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's opens the mind to new treks--new dimensions.
Some day.....and I believe it will be in my generation--we will observe science, philosophy and theology all merge into one body of thought defined simply as: the truths of the universe.
Eureka.....I have found it!
But only fine minds able to think deeply and discard internalization of agenga theory such as Darwinism (and in many cases creationism and ID as taught by Ken Hams and the like) will be the ones able to fully grasp the concept.
Many minds will remain unevolved and unaware of even who they are as a personna because they will never aquire the ability to discover and utilize the spiritual aspect of that triunal personna.
But for those who do, at that moment, that portion of the human race will go from becoming to actually being. We will have found ourselves. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Since it's apparent you can't support your claim with peer-reviewed work...
or calculate, measure, or otherwise determine CSI for anything...
what can ID do?
We already have a science/philosophical view of the universe. It's called science. Philosophy that is robust, testable, falsifiable is folded into science. Atoms were once a philosophical notion about dividing objects. Now, they are well tested, robust, science that is used to predict the behavior of millions of chemical reactions on a daily basis throughout the world.
what can ID do? Specifically. Predict anything? Determine a new result? Show why something happens the way it does?
Go ahead, I'll wait (and keep asking), I've been waiting for an ID proponent to do this for almost two decades.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 26 2012,11:20
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 26 2012,10:14) | [quote=Jerry Don Bauer,Nov. 26 2012,10:01][/quote]
---------------------QUOTE------------------- There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Really? Did you forget to read the following research among many many others? Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome < http://http/....ttp........ttp >
"More than a century ago Darwin and Huxley posited that humans share recent common ancestors with the African great apes. Modern molecular studies have spectacularly confirmed this prediction and have refined the relationships, showing that the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and bonobo (Pan paniscus or pygmy chimpanzee) are our closest living evolutionary relatives." ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dead link....
But if that is the Eyre-Walker Keightley study I am VERY familiar with that paper.
In fact, it is a paper that disses complex macroevolution to the max, although that was not the intentions of the two evolutionary biologists who accomplished the study. *wink*
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 26 2012,11:21
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,07:27) | 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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* ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You missed the point. IDiot-creationists are not pushing QM as 'the designer'. They're pushing "God" as 'the designer', whether they will openly and honestly admit it or not.
So you're claiming that "God" is made of particles? Who or what made "God", and is "God" made of the same particles as humans?
Are you claiming that alleged miracles are just a mistaken impression about natural QM processes/events? Do you tell the people you 'minister' that?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 26 2012,11:22
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,11:17) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 26 2012,09:41) | Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, people who claim there is no evolution, even in drug resistance, are easy to find. Your google-fu is weak.
The "Evolution" of Antibiotic Resistance by Daniel Criswell, Ph.D.
* Dr. Daniel Criswell has a Ph.D. in Science! Molecular Biology. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What, I'm supposed to go read long papers in order to support some point you are trying to make that I'm not even sure what is?
Please bring your discussion in your own words and use PDFs for referrences if you feel they are needed. I will be happy to address your posts in that format. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well hell son, I'd hate to make this hard for you. Tell you what, how about you learn this the same way I did?
Which, BTW, was reading a shitload of long papers. Examining them. Looking for flaws. Comparing results with other papers. Reading a lot of books. Comparing them (and BTW: the pro-ID books suck; bad writing, no science, poor arguments, impossible conclusions, etc). Generating my own conclusions instead of those handed to me by professors.
And you know what? I don't even have a graduate degree. I do this FOR FUN and because it's necessary to understand the science and the way the world works.
slacker
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 26 2012,11:28
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,10:30) | ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not to derail the thread, but this is a fascinating claim.
First, I have some people that you need to meet. Perhaps you can explain this concept to them. Or they can convince you that you aren't a true Christian because you don't believe that the magic book is true. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, they won't convince me of anything along that vein. There is nothing in the Christian conversion (unfortunately) that raises the IQ of the converted. Be careful who you listen to out there.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Second, which parts are literal, which parts are metaphorical... and how do you know? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You become educated. You learn that Hermeneutics is not some Arkansas farmer named Herman.
You then employ hermeneutics to ascertain truth in text. Not just the Bible....any compiled text of the similarity.
Posted by: Southstar on Nov. 26 2012,11:40
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,11:20) | Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 26 2012,10:14) | Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,10:01) | ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Really? Did you forget to read the following research among many many others? Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome < http://http/....ttp........ttp >
"More than a century ago Darwin and Huxley posited that humans share recent common ancestors with the African great apes. Modern molecular studies have spectacularly confirmed this prediction and have refined the relationships, showing that the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and bonobo (Pan paniscus or pygmy chimpanzee) are our closest living evolutionary relatives." ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dead link....
But if that is the Eyre-Walker Keightley study I am VERY familiar with that paper.
In fact, it is a paper that disses complex macroevolution to the max, although that was not the intentions of the two evolutionary biologists who accomplished the study. *wink* ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< http://www.nature.com/nature....72.html >
Corrected the link
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 26 2012,12:03
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,11:28) | [quote=OgreMkV,Nov. 26 2012,10:30][/quote]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not to derail the thread, but this is a fascinating claim.
First, I have some people that you need to meet. Perhaps you can explain this concept to them. Or they can convince you that you aren't a true Christian because you don't believe that the magic book is true. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, they won't convince me of anything along that vein. There is nothing in the Christian conversion (unfortunately) that raises the IQ of the converted. Be careful who you listen to out there.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Second, which parts are literal, which parts are metaphorical... and how do you know? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You become educated. You learn that Hermeneutics is not some Arkansas farmer named Herman.
You then employ hermeneutics to ascertain truth in text. Not just the Bible....any compiled text of the similarity. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
LOL
So, you have admitted that nothing will change your mind. So we're all just wanking here. You included. There is no evidence that will change your mind. You are functionally immune to evidence.
As far as listening to them... I don't even listen to you. I hear what you say and laugh at your inability to do even the things you claim to be able to do. (I'm still waiting for references and that CSI probability calculation.)
As far as the Bible, well, this is your thread. Let's have some fun.
Which of these passages is literal and which is metaphorical and why?
Luke 3:23–38
Matthew 1:1–17
And be careful, I just might surprise you with how much I've studied.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Nov. 26 2012,12:16
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04) | [quote=Dr.GH,Nov. 21 2012,21:41]
... ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) ... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So you are an "evolutionist", and yet you dismiss all transitional fossils as somehow not valid, and I suspect that no fossil will ever satisfy you.
Does that mean that your idea of evolution does not include transitional fossils at all, and in fact no transition is needed? Then how did your kind of evolution happen?
Your argument seems inconsistent (and I was tempted to say dishonest).
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 26 2012,12:58
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,08:01) | Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 26 2012,02:39) | ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- just one of the mistakes you're making is erroneously labeling modern evolutionary theory as "Darwinism". ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, that's NOT a mistake. You guys haven't added much of anything to Darwin's initial musings for the last 150 years. Just fluff, smoke and mirrors as if you are attempting to support a faith.
We HAVE to distinguish between the legitimate science of genetics and evolution and another quirky body of thought where new organisms begin "poofing" out of previously existing ones. The latter is termed Darwinism.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- (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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My religion does NOT teach that woman was literally made from a rib, etc. Those of us who study this understand that the Bible is full of metaphor, parable and analogy. Much of it is NOT to be taken literally as you seem to think.
And I can assure you that, to those of us who do not take the teachings of evolutionary biologists seriously, it appears that at some point, man 'magically morphed' from an apeoid.
There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk.
Earnst Maers (sp??) very specifically defined a sexual species as: any two organisms that can breed and produce viable (the offspring will live), fertile (that offspring can also produce offspring) offspring.
Men and ape-like organisms simply cannot do this no matter how much time is allowed. In fact, it is just asinine from a scientific aspect to even seriously consider it.
---------------------QUOTE------------------- 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No...LOL...that scripture does not mean that God looks like man. Nor is there anything in Darwinistic theory that would conflict with my religious beliefs. In fact, there are a few (a few but not many) Christian believers who also embrace Darwinism.
I reject it probably for the same reasons that some 90% of those in the U.S. who study it do. It's simply scientifically silly.
It's a fairytale for grownups. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Wow, you've got a lot to learn. I'm only going to respond to some of your ridiculous comments because I have better things to do than trying to thoroughly educate you.
You obviously haven't been keeping up if you think that "Just fluff, smoke and mirrors" have been added to Darwin's "initial musings".
Actually, your religion does claim that the first man was created (by "God") from dust and that the first woman was created from the first man's rib. Many people take and teach that literally, and many don't.
The transition from ape-like life forms to humans didn't occur overnight and no credible scientist says it did. And there is a very strong scientific basis for postulating that humans evolved from ape-like and many previous life forms.
This doesn't make any sense:
"Earnst Maers (sp??) very specifically defined a sexual species as: any two organisms that can breed and produce viable (the offspring will live), fertile (that offspring can also produce offspring) offspring.
Men and ape-like organisms simply cannot do this no matter how much time is allowed. In fact, it is just asinine from a scientific aspect to even seriously consider it."
What the hell are you talking about?
I didn't say that "God looks like man" or that "scripture" says that "God looks like man", although there is the stuff in "scripture" about "God" being a 'he/him/his' and the "Father" and the "Prince" and the "Lord" and the "King" (all masculine labels) and there's also some stuff about a character called "Jesus" who is alleged to have been a man and to have looked like a man and is also alleged to be "God" or "Lord" or "Father", etc., by many or all christians. Also, many christians think that "image" means "looks like" and that "God" looks like a man. Tell me, what does "God" the 'Father/Prince/Lord/King' look like?
What exactly is "Darwinistic theory"?
You said:
"I reject it probably for the same reasons that some 90% of those in the U.S. who study it do."
The vast majority of people who actually "study" evolution accept that evolution has occurred and does occur. Most people don't "study" evolution.
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 26 2012,13:06
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,09:05) | Quote (fnxtr @ 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's opens the mind to new treks--new dimensions.
Some day.....and I believe it will be in my generation--we will observe science, philosophy and theology all merge into one body of thought defined simply as: the truths of the universe.
Eureka.....I have found it!
But only fine minds able to think deeply and discard internalization of agenga theory such as Darwinism (and in many cases creationism and ID as taught by Ken Hams and the like) will be the ones able to fully grasp the concept.
Many minds will remain unevolved and unaware of even who they are as a personna because they will never aquire the ability to discover and utilize the spiritual aspect of that triunal personna.
But for those who do, at that moment, that portion of the human race will go from becoming to actually being. We will have found ourselves. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"...the spiritual aspect of that triunal personna..."
All science so far!
Posted by: The whole truth on Nov. 26 2012,13:22
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,09:17) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 26 2012,09:41) | Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, people who claim there is no evolution, even in drug resistance, are easy to find. Your google-fu is weak.
The "Evolution" of Antibiotic Resistance by Daniel Criswell, Ph.D.
* Dr. Daniel Criswell has a Ph.D. in Science! Molecular Biology. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What, I'm supposed to go read long papers in order to support some point you are trying to make that I'm not even sure what is?
Please bring your discussion in your own words and use PDFs for referrences if you feel they are needed. I will be happy to address your posts in that format. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know what point Tracy is making and if you were honest you would too. It has to do with your comment:
"However, again, evolution is not contested by anyone I am familiar with on either side."
Your attempt at diversionary games won't work here.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 26 2012,13:45
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 26 2012,11:40) | Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,11:20) | Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 26 2012,10:14) | Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,10:01) | ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- There certainly is no scientific basis for postulating such a silly notion. And one has to leave the realm of science entirely to make it appear to walk. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Really? Did you forget to read the following research among many many others? Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome < http://http/....ttp........ttp >
"More than a century ago Darwin and Huxley posited that humans share recent common ancestors with the African great apes. Modern molecular studies have spectacularly confirmed this prediction and have refined the relationships, showing that the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and bonobo (Pan paniscus or pygmy chimpanzee) are our closest living evolutionary relatives." ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dead link....
But if that is the Eyre-Walker Keightley study I am VERY familiar with that paper.
In fact, it is a paper that disses complex macroevolution to the max, although that was not the intentions of the two evolutionary biologists who accomplished the study. *wink* ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< http://www.nature.com/nature.....72.html >
Corrected the link ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Gotcha...thanks, that is a different paper and a GOOD read thus far...I'll chew on it.
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 26 2012,13:58
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,11:05) | It's opens the mind to new treks--new dimensions. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So it's really just another take on Dianetics or Lifespring. Greeeeaatt...
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Some day.....and I believe it will be in my generation--we will observe science, philosophy and theology all merge into one body of thought defined simply as: the truths of the universe.
Eureka.....I have found it! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sing it sister!
---------------------QUOTE------------------- But only fine minds able to think deeply and discard internalization of agenga theory such as Darwinism (and in many cases creationism and ID as taught by Ken Hams and the like) will be the ones able to fully grasp the concept.
Many minds will remain unevolved and unaware of even who they are as a personna because they will never aquire the ability to discover and utilize the spiritual aspect of that triunal personna.
But for those who do, at that moment, that portion of the human race will go from becoming to actually being. We will have found ourselves. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yep...sounds just like Scientology, EST, and Lifespring. Hey, the money's great if you can be that disingenuous.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 26 2012,14:25
You really need to lay off the acid for a while, Jerry.
Posted by: Jerry Don Bauer on Nov. 26 2012,14:47
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 26 2012,12:16) | [quote=Jerry Don Bauer,Nov. 25 2012,10:04] Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 21 2012,21:41) |
... ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) ... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So you are an "evolutionist", and yet you dismiss all transitional fossils as somehow not valid, and I suspect that no fossil will ever satisfy you.
Does that mean that your idea of evolution does not include transitional fossils at all, and in fact no transition is needed? Then how did your kind of evolution happen?
Your argument seems inconsistent (and I was tempted to say dishonest). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're welcome to call me dishonest if you wish, I have no problem with that..lol... But here is the truth:
Evolution is a fact of science. Populations mutate every second and at least some of those mutations will become fixed in the gene pools of those populations.
That is the classic definition of evolution. You can define evolution anyway use choose, I suppose...but the above is how a biologist that writes a 101 textbook would define it. I wholeheartedly agree with those textbooks.
Evolution is NOT defined as natural selection waving a magic wand and all kinds of critters begin spewing forth from others, ethreally popping out as new species against the laws of science or at least the scientific definition of a sexual species...
That MAY be YOUR definition of evolution, but I can assure you that it doesn't come from the scientific method.
And no, I don't dismiss transitional fossils, I simply said there isn't any in existence that are noncontroversial and well accepted as such.......It's hard to intentionally dismiss something that does not exist...:)))
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 26 2012,14:49
Next comes obfuscation about micro/macro, aka biblical "kinds".
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Nov. 26 2012,15:02
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 26 2012,12:16) | Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04) | Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 21 2012,21:41) |
... ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) ... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So you are an "evolutionist", and yet you dismiss all transitional fossils as somehow not valid, and I suspect that no fossil will ever satisfy you.
Does that mean that your idea of evolution does not include transitional fossils at all, and in fact no transition is needed? Then how did your kind of evolution happen?
Your argument seems inconsistent (and I was tempted to say dishonest). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're welcome to call me dishonest if you wish, I have no problem with that..lol... But here is the truth:
Evolution is a fact of science. Populations mutate every second and at least some of those mutations will become fixed in the gene pools of those populations.
That is the classic definition of evolution. You can define evolution anyway use choose, I suppose...but the above is how a biologist that writes a 101 textbook would define it. I wholeheartedly agree with those textbooks.
Evolution is NOT defined as natural selection waving a magic wand and all kinds of critters begin spewing forth from others, ethreally popping out as new species against the laws of science or at least the scientific definition of a sexual species...
That MAY be YOUR definition of evolution, but I can assure you that it doesn't come from the scientific method.
And no, I don't dismiss transitional fossils, I simply said there isn't any in existence that are noncontroversial and well accepted as such.......It's hard to intentionally dismiss something that does not exist...:))) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Nov. 26 2012,15:13
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,14:47) | [quote=Kattarina98,Nov. 26 2012,12:16] Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04) | Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 21 2012,21:41) |
... ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) ... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So you are an "evolutionist", and yet you dismiss all transitional fossils as somehow not valid, and I suspect that no fossil will ever satisfy you.
Does that mean that your idea of evolution does not include transitional fossils at all, and in fact no transition is needed? Then how did your kind of evolution happen?
Your argument seems inconsistent (and I was tempted to say dishonest). ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You're welcome to call me dishonest if you wish, I have no problem with that..lol... But here is the truth:
Evolution is a fact of science. Populations mutate every second and at least some of those mutations will become fixed in the gene pools of those populations.
That is the classic definition of evolution. You can define evolution anyway use choose, I suppose...but the above is how a biologist that writes a 101 textbook would define it. I wholeheartedly agree with those textbooks.
Evolution is NOT defined as natural selection waving a magic wand and all kinds of critters begin spewing forth from others, ethreally popping out as new species against the laws of science or at least the scientific definition of a sexual species...
That MAY be YOUR definition of evolution, but I can assure you that it doesn't come from the scientific method.
And no, I don't dismiss transitional fossils, I simply said there isn't any in existence that are noncontroversial and well accepted as such.......It's hard to intentionally dismiss something that does not exist...:))) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And here is the confirmation that you do not know anything about evolution, thank you.
Every being that lived to procreate was transitional, and so are you. Every fossil is transitional, but some stand out because they show more clearly than others where they came from and where they will lead to. They are snapshots of incremental change.
You might want to read a textbook, that helps.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 26 2012,15:20
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,10:40) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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* ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Jerry,
Not all particles are entangled. Your QM argument lacks coherence. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tracy:
Particles that are created at the same time in the same system become entangled. Did the big bang not create all particles in this universe at the same time? With me on that? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just because particles are created at the same time does not mean they are entangled. It depends on the state vector and its time evolution.
Some particles were made today. We call them photons, and they enable those with eyes to see. You have eyes but do not see.
QED.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 26 2012,15:24
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 26 2012,11:17) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|