RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (12) < ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 >   
  Topic: The limits of darwinism., Utunumsint's thread.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,16:22   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,16:11)
Well it sure doesn't hurt.

So do you believe that faith and reason are incompatible or contradictory?

Cheers,
Ut

Except in cases where it DID hurt. Like creationism, heliocentrism, spiritual healing vs. medicine, etc. etc.

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,16:39   

I'll be brief, that's the best I can do. The problem with religions is that they make God a supernatural being instead of the intrapsychic 'force' it is.

Book religions are bad, they introduce so much nonsense that they can be put to whatever use their proponents may want.

Literalism of course makes it even worse; boundless idiocy from creationists is evidence we all are familiar with.

Christendom would be much better if we got rid of the OT, Acts, the fake/forged letters of St. Paul, and the Apocalypse. And make the the true meaning of the Jesus myth public knowledge.

What conflict between religion ans science? My religion has no conflict. Religion is about the inner life of man. To the extent that psychology is a science, no conflict there either.

Not well said, but somewhere along those lines.

But the world won't be ready for that for a long time yet, but all the knowledge we need is available.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,16:41   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 11 2010,22:22)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,16:11)
Well it sure doesn't hurt.

So do you believe that faith and reason are incompatible or contradictory?

Cheers,
Ut

Except in cases where it DID hurt. Like creationism, heliocentrism, spiritual healing vs. medicine, etc. etc.

HARharrr!!!!!

THIS IS YOUR MOM!!!



Oups, sorry, Rich reflex...

Beside that whole point of making fun of Rich's mom*, it is now quite evident, I think, that Ut is an evil sock-puppet from beyond!

Let's have some fun and ask him about genesis!

Pwetty pwease?


*Always worth it, whatever the priest says!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,18:24   

Ut-less wrote:

Quote
Billy Bob. Don't you think the world would be a better place if everyone were a little bit more rational? That is all I'm saying.


says the guy who gets "revealed truth" from a magical sky fairy to the scientist who observes the natural world.

Yeah, Ut, I agree the world would be a better place if you were rational but you're not, you're delusional.  Hear voices.  Invoke Zombie Hitler.

By "rational" you mean that we should sit here and listen to you spout your unsubstantiated, bat-shit crazy notions and not call you out on them?  That what you mean, Ut?

Hey, if you want to be an intellectual freeloader you need to go over to the Discovery Institute website and comment there.  Good luck with that, grasshopper.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,19:04   

I agree with Ut that the world would be a better place if people, myself included, were more rational in every sense of the word.

I suspect that believing in an invisible man in the sky who threatens you, and has this really good deal for you if only you do what he says, or more precisely his self appointed representatives say, but listens to everything you ask of him, isn't going to fall under any workable definition of "rational" that has't been bent over a sofa and rogered from behind so thoroughly you could use its arsehole as a cat flap. For a tiger. Riding on a motorbike. With a series of other very overweight tigers in some sort of large pyramid formation. On an aircraft carrier. Sideways.

Anyway, my revelation (for my gods* speak to me too), says that everyone else's revelation is false. All my reasoning from that point, which constitutes a valid theology, says you're wrong, so nyah.

And that probably constitutes religion hating, I'll break out the fainting couch and smelling salts for anyone having a tough of the vapours.

Louis

*Actual gods may not exist

--------------
Bye.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,19:18   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 11 2010,19:04)
I agree with Ut that the world would be a better place if people, myself included, were more rational in every sense of the word.

I suspect that believing in an invisible man in the sky who threatens you, and has this really good deal for you if only you do what he says, or more precisely his self appointed representatives say, but listens to everything you ask of him, isn't going to fall under any workable definition of "rational" that has't been bent over a sofa and rogered from behind so thoroughly you could use its arsehole as a cat flap. For a tiger. Riding on a motorbike. With a series of other very overweight tigers in some sort of large pyramid formation. On an aircraft carrier. Sideways.

Anyway, my revelation (for my gods* speak to me too), says that everyone else's revelation is false. All my reasoning from that point, which constitutes a valid theology, says you're wrong, so nyah.

And that probably constitutes religion hating, I'll break out the fainting couch and smelling salts for anyone having a tough of the vapours.

Louis

*Actual gods may not exist

Yes, but Ut is talking about Roman Catholicism, which is actually the true religion, and has a pope, lots of saints and miracles, and a deity you can eat, unlike all of those irrational religions.

Edit: typo

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,19:21   

Louis is in fine form today. Always a teat. Uh, treat, I mean.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,04:42   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Feb. 12 2010,00:18)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 11 2010,19:04)
I agree with Ut that the world would be a better place if people, myself included, were more rational in every sense of the word.

I suspect that believing in an invisible man in the sky who threatens you, and has this really good deal for you if only you do what he says, or more precisely his self appointed representatives say, but listens to everything you ask of him, isn't going to fall under any workable definition of "rational" that has't been bent over a sofa and rogered from behind so thoroughly you could use its arsehole as a cat flap. For a tiger. Riding on a motorbike. With a series of other very overweight tigers in some sort of large pyramid formation. On an aircraft carrier. Sideways.

Anyway, my revelation (for my gods* speak to me too), says that everyone else's revelation is false. All my reasoning from that point, which constitutes a valid theology, says you're wrong, so nyah.

And that probably constitutes religion hating, I'll break out the fainting couch and smelling salts for anyone having a tough of the vapours.

Louis

*Actual gods may not exist

Yes, but Ut is talking about Roman Catholicism, which is actually the true religion, and has a pope, lots of saints and miracles, and a deity you can eat, unlike all of those irrational religions.

Edit: typo

Oh well why didn't someone say so. Of course this means I now take everything back. The catholic religious institution has the best hats and, and this is important, IN NO WAY HAD A SECTION OF ITS ORGANISATION DEDICATED TO THE COVER UP OF THE ACTIONS OF PAEDOPHILE PRIESTS (gosh, that came out louder than expected). That's how you know it's Da-One-Troo-Church-a-Gawd. See?

Of course this is irrelevent to the truth of any propositions or claims they might make. However...how did Ut put it...oh yes...it doesn't hurt.

Look! Look! I can dismiss ideas by tarring them with nasty assertions! Look! I too can couple the tiresome and irrelevant to something. Perhaps I should do a little dance of smug, sanctimonious glee?

Oh that's right, I shouldn't.

I know I'm a Meanie and an {gasp, reaches for fainting couch} Atheist {dun dun duuuuuuh!} but really if the level of someone's discussion cannot elevate itself beyond the sublimely unconnected and incoherent then mockery is really the best way. Good old Thomas Jefferson had it right on that at least.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,04:43   

Science is all about the objective, empirically-verifiable data; as well, science regards 'private revelation' as the worst sort of flaw. Religion, contrariwise, is all about subjective 'data', and prizes 'private revelation' above everything else. Science loves doubt; religion despises doubt. Science insists on empirical confirmation; religion says "thou shalt not put thy God to the test.
In other words: Science and religion damn well are incompatible -- and religion knows it. Which brings up one more difference between science and religion: If science had its druthers, science would be perfectly happy to ignore religion -- but the reverse is very definitely not true.

I am not impressed by lists of religious people who happen to do science, or of scientists who happen to be religious. If "see? these guys do BOTH science AND religion!" really were a valid argument in support of the argument that religion is compatible with science, all those Catholic priests who rape little children would be a valid argument in support of the proposition that Catholicism is compatible with raping little children.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,04:52   

Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 12 2010,00:21)
Louis is in fine form today. Always a teat. Uh, treat, I mean.

Close, and with so many bananas. ;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,09:13   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,16:11)
 
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 11 2010,15:56)
 
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,19:58)
[SNIP list of religious people who did science]

Yep. Religion and science. They just don't mix!!! :)

Cheers,
Ut

The fact that some people who do science also hold to a religious belief does not equate in any way to support of the claim that science and religion (or more properly reason and faith/revelation) are epistemologically compatible, nor does it equate to support for the claim that science is an outgrowth of/owes something to a vague and nebulous definition of religion.

Louis

Well it sure doesn't hurt.

So do you believe that faith and reason are incompatible or contradictory?

Cheers,
Ut

If it doesn't hurt, why are believers in a supernatural being under-represented amongst present-day scientists? Just think how long your list might be if, for all those centuries, it had been acceptable to be a non-believer.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,10:54   

i have several questions and can't find a thread to post on, so here goes:

1. why do so many discussions about ID vs TOE turn into discussions about philosophy? I''m obviously naive to think that science is about observable evidence and experimentation.

2.  WTF is methodologic naturalism? and why is it used as a cuss word by the IDiota?

3. can anyone explain what the IDiota mean by information?

thanks

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,11:06   

Quote (Richard Simons @ Feb. 12 2010,09:13)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,16:11)
 
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 11 2010,15:56)
   
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,19:58)
[SNIP list of religious people who did science]

Yep. Religion and science. They just don't mix!!! :)

Cheers,
Ut

The fact that some people who do science also hold to a religious belief does not equate in any way to support of the claim that science and religion (or more properly reason and faith/revelation) are epistemologically compatible, nor does it equate to support for the claim that science is an outgrowth of/owes something to a vague and nebulous definition of religion.

Louis

Well it sure doesn't hurt.

So do you believe that faith and reason are incompatible or contradictory?

Cheers,
Ut

If it doesn't hurt, why are believers in a supernatural being under-represented amongst present-day scientists? Just think how long your list might be if, for all those centuries, it had been acceptable to be a non-believer.

That's a big question. If you have the stomach for it, you should read Charles Taylor's A Secular Age where he asks the question of why it is that for the first time in history, it is easier to not believe in God, than to believe in him.

Its a big book, but certainly well worth the effort.

Cheers,
Ut

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,11:12   

Quote (nmgirl @ Feb. 12 2010,10:54)
i have several questions and can't find a thread to post on, so here goes:

1. why do so many discussions about ID vs TOE turn into discussions about philosophy? I''m obviously naive to think that science is about observable evidence and experimentation.

2.  WTF is methodologic naturalism? and why is it used as a cuss word by the IDiota?

3. can anyone explain what the IDiota mean by information?

thanks

1-Its what you do with the data of science that raises philosophical questions. For example, I the course of my investigations in evolution, I've come to the conclusion that life is wonderously made. I don't doubt the existance of God because of my rejection of ID, but find cause to rejoyce in his creative power. But that is a philosophical/theological position. Others on this forum come to very different philosophical conclusions.

2-Methodological naturalism has to do with early and current debates on how nature should be studied. Does it have its own internal laws that can be investigated without reference to supernatural powers? From a very early date there were those who supported this view of science (what they called natural philosophy back then). IDers don't like it because they want to have a God who has to tweek his creation every couple of hundred years to help evolution along.

3-I believe Dembski means that the genetic code contains very specific information that is indispensible for the proper working of organisms. Its like a language.

Does that help?

Cheers,
Ut

  
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,11:27   

nmgirl:
 
Quote
1. why do so many discussions about ID vs TOE turn into discussions about philosophy? I''m obviously naive to think that science is about observable evidence and experimentation.


Hi, nmgirl. I'll take a crack at your questions, but all it'll be is my opinion.

IMO, the reason ID vs TOE discussions turn to philosophy is because the root issue is metaphysical [philosophical]. That's why I am prone to describe these sort of discussions as "Dueling Metaphysics." Which is far as I can tell a favorite perennial human pastime.

 
Quote
2. WTF is methodologic naturalism? and why is it used as a cuss word by the IDiota?


Methodological naturalism is the guiding axiom of scientific inquiry. It is the baseline presumption that all phenomena subject to scientific examination and quantification are natural. IOW, science can't investigate and quantify things like ghosts, pixies, angels or gods because such things are by definition not natural. Science can investigate and quantify biological phenomena because life is natural. IDers often conflate methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. Philosophical naturalism holds that all phenomena (known and unknown) must be entirely natural, not just the phenomena science can investigate.

 
Quote
3. can anyone explain what the IDiota mean by information?


Sorry, no. The definition seems to vary quite a bit depending on who is doing the defining in any given discussion/debate. IMO, "information" is data (in any form) that can be processed by a receiver to provide some kind of knowledge/understanding of what is being transmitted. A receiver may or may not act upon processed information, action is not required in order for information to be transmitted, processed and known/understood.

I'm pretty sure there are at least a dozen people here (and among the ranks of ID supporters) who would offer an entirely different definition, so don't put too much stock in mine.

What's your definition?

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,18:43   

Quote (nmgirl @ Feb. 12 2010,10:54)
3. can anyone explain what the IDiota mean by information?

thanks

No, except that it is never the definition used by anyone who disagrees with ID.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Amadan



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,19:40   

What do you mean by 'definition'? Eh?

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,19:53   

Information

Quote

Antievolutionists want to confuse and conflate meaning and information. Spetner, Gitt, Truman, and Dembski... all of them want meaning to be folded within whatever sort of "information" they propose.

Shannon's discussion of information explicitly excluded meaning. Algorithmic information theory only cares about one aspect of meaning: what is the shortest program and input that can generate a string?

Critique of Dembski's "complex specified information"


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

    
sledgehammer



Posts: 533
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2010,23:09   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 12 2010,09:27)
Methodological naturalism is the guiding axiom of scientific inquiry. It is the baseline presumption that all phenomena subject to scientific examination and quantification are natural. IOW, science can't investigate and quantify things like ghosts, pixies, angels or gods because such things are by definition not natural. Science can investigate and quantify biological phenomena because life is natural. IDers often conflate methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. Philosophical naturalism holds that all phenomena (known and unknown) must be entirely natural, not just the phenomena science can investigate.

I think the reason that investigation of "ghosts, pixies, angels or gods" and such are not considered science is not because they are defined as "not natural", but because they are notoriously un-repeatable, which makes experimentation and hypothesis testing extremely difficult, if not impossible.  If ghosts, miracles, etc. were  phenomena that could be produced on demand, they could, and would, be subject to scientific investigation, ala e.g. "Mythbusters".
 Even random, noiselike phenomena like radioactive decay, unpredictable for a single nucleus, are statistically predictable to a high degree of accuracy, and hence are amenable to scientific investigation.

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2010,01:03   

Quote
3. can anyone explain what the IDiota mean by information?


It means "buy my book".

Henry

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,11:29   

Anyone ever seen this pro ID video?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5585125669588896670#

There are a few arguments made concerning the flagellum that I am interested in from 17 minutes to 25 +
Could someone provide counterarguments, or at least good sources for counterarguments to these claims?


1-Is co-option the only argument for the contruction of flagelar motors?

2-Is it true that only around 10 of the 40 components of the flagellum could have been coopted from other structures?

3-Is it true that even if you had all 40 components that could be gathered together using cooption, that you would still need an incredibly complex assembly unit or organism?

Also, it seems to me that I've allowed myself to be convinced that because two simultaneous mutations have been proven to add new functionality, based on the Lenski tests, that this means evolution could have produced what Behe calls irriducibly complex machines, such as the flagelar motors. I was also convinced that such double mutations were not only possible, but that they were not even that rare. However, the traces of such mutations would be difficult to find since the more successfull double mutations would supplant weaker double mutations.

But I'm still having problems imagining the evulutionary path to such complex organisms as the flagellum. How do we argue from Lenski's experiments to a plausible evolutionary path to the flagellum?

Cheers,
Ut

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,12:16   

http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/claims-evolution-flagella

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,12:34   

Thanks for the link Midwife.

So the just of what the link says is that Minnich is lying. Is this correct?

Are there any counterargument from IDers for this?

Does this basically mean that all of the parts of the flagella, except for two, could have been coopted?

Cheers,
Ut

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,12:42   

Quote (Utunumsint @ April 06 2010,11:29)
But I'm still having problems imagining the evulutionary path to such complex organisms as the flagellum.

From what?

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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,12:43   

Don't know if it proves anything at all, but to me it means the gaps are tiny, even considering the lack of specific historical knowledge.

To me it means that just about every part of the flagellum code exists in a non-flagellum context.

So basically, what you said.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,12:49   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 06 2010,12:42)
Quote (Utunumsint @ April 06 2010,11:29)
But I'm still having problems imagining the evulutionary path to such complex organisms as the flagellum.

From what?

Well that's just the point. If there are 30 missing homologes(?), and the closest relative to the fully functioning flagella has only 10, then you have to explain the jump.

What midwife's post affirms is that Minnich was dead wrong about this fact, and correspondingly, so was Behe. All the functions of the flagella could have been coopted.

Cheers,
Ut

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,12:49   

Quote (midwifetoad @ April 06 2010,12:43)
Don't know if it proves anything at all, but to me it means the gaps are tiny, even considering the lack of specific historical knowledge.

To me it means that just about every part of the flagellum code exists in a non-flagellum context.

So basically, what you said.

Thanks midwife.

...this was a quick one... :)

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,12:53   

I'd just like to start a betting pool for the day that Dembski removes Mr. Wiggles from the UD home page.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,12:58   

Quote (midwifetoad @ April 06 2010,12:53)
I'd just like to start a betting pool for the day that Dembski removes Mr. Wiggles from the UD home page.

There goes their last shreed of credibility they had with gullible old me.... :),

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,13:53   

Hey,

I just reread the thread, and it looks like 17 out of the 40 proteins non homologous. What does it mean to say "not yet know?"

Cheers,
Ut

  
  333 replies since Jan. 28 2010,12:18 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (12) < ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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