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

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Help required!

Pages: (3) < 1 2 [3] >

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2008,08:07    Quote (skeptic @ Jan. 12 2008,07:29) sorry Alba, not sure which specific post that link was for.  It brought up the whole page but as far as a mechanistic theory, I'll put together a summary and post it here. It refers to your statement   Quote The reason why this is scary is because, to be perfectly honest, the current theory has no good mechanistic explanations for evolution and no one wants to admit that.  Evolution is no longer science it is dogma because of the perceived threat from ID/creationism.  Under current conditions there can be no dissent because that would offer a weakness to the enemy and right now defeating the enemy is more important than scientific integrity.  This, of course, will change when enough evidence is amassed to offer a more complete mechanism to replace RM seamlessly and the enemy then will have no weakness to exploit.  In other words, right now it is about politics but one day it will actually be about science again. wherein you express your opinion that there are "no good mechanistic explanations for evolution". I'm assuming that you mean that current evolutionary theory provides no good mechanistic explanations for the diversity of life that we see today, but if the original is what you really meant, please justify that as well. Meanwhile, since the perceived lack of mechanistic explanations seems to peeve you, I'm sure that you can provide a fuller, more mechanism-rich explanation to replace evolutionary theory. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Richard Simons Posts: 425 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2008,10:00    Quote I am not saying that mutations occur at random locations in the genome.  And all mutations are related to the environment, nothing happens in a vacuum. Then what are you saying? No-one is claiming that the environment has no effect on the number or even the type (deletion, substitution, etc) of mutations that occur. What people are saying, and you seem to be ignoring, is that there is no evidence that mutations  preferentially help the population to adapt to the current environment.   Quote It may help if I clarify one thing, the environment is not just what some are trying to save This is comparable with writing on a sports blog 'It may help if I clarify one thing, not all sports are played with spherical balls.' That you felt it was a useful thing to write tells us about your level of expertise. -------------- All sweeping statements are wrong.

Nerull Posts: 317 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2008,11:12    Skeptic, lets try something simpler you might be able to understand. Lets say I have a normal 6 sided die. I drop it on a carpet, a hardwood desk, and a rubber mat. These all change the manner, number, type of bounces. Which makes the die more likely to read '4'? None of them. Though all affect the die in different ways, they do not change the essentially random outcome. (We're ignoring the fact that the die could be modeled if we knew its starting state and every force acting on it with precision, since its irrelevant to the discussion.) -------------- To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2008,11:20    Skeptic I think you are a few bricks shy of a load. That is irrelevant.  Regarding louis, I was wondering if we might use the EF to determine if this is his post on pharyngula. Louis? -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2008,14:54    that's good news, even if he's not here it's good to know he's somewhere...and not the alternative.

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2008,22:36    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 12 2008,12:20) Skeptic I think you are a few bricks shy of a load. That is irrelevant.  Regarding louis, I was wondering if we might use the EF to determine if this is his post on pharyngula. Louis? The disclaimer remark smacks of our dear friend. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

silverspoon Posts: 123 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,18:49    Quote (skeptic @ Jan. 12 2008,07:29) sorry Alba, not sure which specific post that link was for.  It brought up the whole page but as far as a mechanistic theory, I'll put together a summary and post it here. Um--- Bump -------------- Grand Poobah of the nuclear mafia

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,06:38    Joy, the dude in the discussion I started this topic about is back. I really don't get it, he still thinks specified complexity is new and research-able. I tried to address the fact that those things are long since addressed, I even showed an article from Wesley but he ignores it saying it would be wise to show something else then arguments from own ground (and he means evolutionists by that). So annoying, how do you EVER discuss with people like that?

rhmc Posts: 340 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,15:43    ask for peer reviewed papers, experiments and proof. and when he finally admits there are none, tell him hand waving and wild theories and invisible rabbits aren't gonna cut it and that you'll be glad to carry on the discusion when he provides something a bit more substantial. at first he'll throw up some half baked garbage but the web and this site are an excellent source of information to disprove the creation/ID trash. the approach really depends on if you wanna simply grind him into oblivion and humiliate him or educate him. i prefer the former.  the results are more lasting. make him stick his neck out.  then the option is yours. :)

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,05:35    I asked him indeed for papers on specified complexity. He just came up with someone named Orgel, wich is apperantly the one who came up with specified complexity (Dembski's inspiration?). Apperantly, he thinks that he also supports the ID hypotheses (at least I made him admit ID is not a theory at all) but I'm not that sure. He also popped up something, wich made me wanted to ask a question too: He says that fossils and genetic similarity's don't say affinity, but júst similarity's. So they're not really proof for common descent. He also sad that they're extremly prone to interpretation, people see in them what they want to see. That made we wonder, what do fossils and genetic similarity's proof? I know about TalkOrigin's 29 evidences for common descent article, but strangly he doesn't accept it. It may work for me, but not for him. The last thing he sad wich makes me wonder is (rough translation): Macroscopic events wich require extremly improbable microscopic events don't happen spontaneously, but can happen with intelligent intervention. Now I asked for an explanation for that statement, where he got it from etc etc. But he's in the hospital atm, so it can take a while. So maybe, in the meantime, someone here can explain what he means with that statement and where he got it from. It's an odd fellow, sometimes he dodges more questions then Neo dodges bullets, sometimes he's a really good person to discuss with, and sometimes he simply spews ad hominems vs sources and people (like he called TalkOrigins a collection of atheďstic madman not worth mentioning, and he swept all things I got from that website from the table).

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,06:09    Ask for a) A demonstration of the Explanatory Filter, or the location of such a demonstration of it in use. b) A figure for the Complex Specified Information in *anything*  at all. Also, what units is CSI measured in? The fossil record proves (or, rather, is not incompatible with) the idea that my invisible space unicorn arranges each bone in turn, as required, to make the arrangement of bones look earthy like the arrangement of bones somebody who is not aware of the existence of invisible bone placing unicorns would expect to see. Same facts. Different interpretation. Therefore ID. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,08:02    I don't think he actually supports the Explanatory Filter, but it never hurts to ask ;) But yea, the thing about the fossils, you exactly make his point. What's the foundation for the common-descent interpretation from the fossil record and genetic data. He also decided he wanted to shift the subject to the origin of life and why it is so improbable and doesn't happen without an act of intelligence intervening. He says that a replicator can't arise from stochastic processes because that would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Ofcourse I asked for peer-reviewd papers and experiments, and I also asked if the processes involved in making a replicator are indeed stochastic or random.

Richard Simons Posts: 425 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,09:55    Have you pointed out that the Theory of Evolution does not specify that a supernatural designer was not involved, it just does not require that one was involved? I would tend not to argue that there is no supernatural designer but that one is not needed. Can he point to anything that could not have evolved, remembering that there is a big difference between 'I cannot imagine how' and 'this violates the laws of physics or chemistry'? He cannot blame the TOE for his own lack of imagination. In his view, exactly how does the designer actually make the required changes to organisms? This is one of the things I find hardest to imagine. Does God (presumably) cause a strand of DNA to get broken here and a nucleotide to be inserted there, and if so how could this be distinguished from random changes? A crucial point about the fossil data is that it all fits into a nested hierarchy, exactly as if evolution were true. In addition, the information from genetic studies fits the same nested hierarchy. For even a small tree, the probability of this happening by chance is extremely small, sufficient to make the construction of a 747 by a tornado look commonplace (I have seen data on this but I can't recall where). Other traits such as geographical distribution are in accordance too. It can confidently be predicted that organisms not yet discovered will also fit into this hierarchy. No-one will ever find a bat with a beak or a tree fern with colourful flowers. Have you been able to pin him down into telling you just what he would accept as evidence that evolution has taken place? Good luck! Edit: to insert a missing word. -------------- All sweeping statements are wrong.

Richard Simons Posts: 425 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,10:03    Quote (Assassinator @ Feb. 03 2008,08:02) He says that a replicator can't arise from stochastic processes because that would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I forgot to add: Ask him to explain the second law of thermodynamics in his own words because he does not understand it and has probably forgotten the crucial 'in a closed system' part. Also ask why, if abiogenesis violates a fundamental physical law, in more than 100 years physical scientists have ignored this point? -------------- All sweeping statements are wrong.

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,10:10    Yes I have addressed that, since he kept talking about a No Design hypotheses and talked about it if it was the crux from the evolutional theory. I just sad that evolutional research hasen't found design or a designer yet, and thus it's not involved in the current research since they manage without. He does not talk about the workings from the so-called designer, I can't remember he ever did. He once sad that  it didn't sound that wierd to him if we would've been designed by aliens. I've read about the nested hierarchy yes, but only like half a year ago or something like that. I sure have to fresh things up, I'll first dive back into Biology (International and 7th edition) from Campbell and Reece and I'll look up some info on the internet before I address it to him. I'll have to look first where the OOL discussion is going anyway ;) At least I've asked for papers and experiments, and I've "firmly" addressed his ad-hominems vs TalkOrigin-linked sources. I'm curious how he works himself out of that, I think he'll ignore it. Edit: He suddenly flooded me with quotes from an article from Orgel: http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlser....0060018 I'm reading it atm, but I could use some help understanding the article. I can't really ask the dude himself, since he's an IT person and not into chemistry. I've only just begun studying chemistry, so again if anyone could help me understand this article (what the article wants to say, things like that): help would be appreciated ;)

rhmc Posts: 340 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,17:33    Quote (Assassinator @ Feb. 03 2008,11:10) he's an IT person is he familiar with self modifiying code?

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 03 2008,18:27    Quote Ask him to explain the second law of thermodynamics in his own words because he does not understand it and has probably forgotten the crucial 'in a closed system' part. Yeah, find out if he's noticed that bright yellow thing that can be seen in the sky on clear days. Henry

Assassinator Posts: 479 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2008,07:01    He only has a problem with the 2nd law with the origin of life, not really with evolution. His problems with evolution are bassicly with Common Descent. @rhmc: I don't know, but I'm not. It sounds very interesting though, I'll look something up about it for myself first

Pages: (3) < 1 2 [3] >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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