Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach
platypus
Member (Idle past 5754 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 91 of 302 (370522)
12-17-2006 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by limbosis
12-17-2006 5:41 PM


Re: Putting the Car Before the Horse
quote:
this modification happens from TIME TO TIME is what I'm suggesting--not slowly through the means of natural selection--from time to time.
Well, this is the crux of the issue, from a scientific perspective. We have a good explanation of how change happens through time, ie natural selection. If this is where you think current evolutionary thought breaks down, explain exactly how a change may come about. Is the change instantaneous? Does it happen to an organism? Or do the gods mess with an organism's sperm and induce the change in the offspring by some mysterious means? What evidence would constitute a confirmation of this new mechanism? Does that evidence exist? Notice that this is a big task that no creationist or IDer has stood up to, but I kinda like you limbosis. You are neither a creationist nor an IDer, nor bound by silly books or beliefs. You are an EDer, an Evil Designer proponent (yes, I think I coined that). You may just be able to give an answer to this question. And remember, the machanism that causes changes cannot violate laws of physics, meaning you can't claim that mass is instantaneously added to an organism out of nowhere, since mass needs to come from somewhere.
Another question, because I'm curious. Did the creator(s) make one original species like a bacteria in the beginning and evolve everything from that, or were there separate groups in the beginning, like mammals and reptiles and such?
quote:
The only other explanation is a very stupid designer.
Or evil.
Or evil AND stupid.
So let me get this straight- vestigial organs point to a designer that is either evil or stupid, and silly designs point to a designer with a sense of humor? I may just be starting to like this theory. Limbosis, have you ever considered Mormonism? I believe that really good Mormons become gods in the afterlife, who rule over their own worlds. Might explain a lot of what you are suggesting here...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by limbosis, posted 12-17-2006 5:41 PM limbosis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by limbosis, posted 12-18-2006 2:35 PM platypus has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 92 of 302 (370587)
12-18-2006 2:28 AM


More Thoughts On The Design Process
Of course, there is the possibility that our universe is a rough draft, the Designer's equivalent of a pencil sketch.
Such an object does, after all, bear the hallmarks of design, and, if the Designer is Intelligent, then necessarily it bears the hallmarks of Intelligent Design.
Imagine, if you will, a conversation like this.
"Well I do have an idea ... it's kind of in the rough stages right now ... but if you'll hand me a reality pencil ... haven't you got a sharp one? Oh well, it's not important. Now, have you got a spare piece of continuum? No, the stains don't matter. Well, I was thinking ... hmmm ... and then this here like this ... can you tell what it is yet? ... and then the hadrons here like so ... don't jog my elbow! ... and then ... and, yah, what d'you think? It's just a rough three-dimensional sketch, but it gives you an idea. Yeah, I left out the feckles and the contrapotes 'cos they're so fiddly to draw. Anyway, that's the basic idea, but if you've got a spare trillion years we can discuss the concept over lunch."

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by kuresu, posted 12-18-2006 2:37 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 97 by limbosis, posted 12-18-2006 2:46 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 93 of 302 (370588)
12-18-2006 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Dr Adequate
12-18-2006 2:28 AM


Re: More Thoughts On The Design Process
and then the ID people who are actually creationists in sheep's clothing can reconcile the multiverse w/o a problem.
the other verses are other drafts.
However, if there are something like an infinite number of verses (or less), then this whole verse-design business must be a pain in the ass. can you imagine doing over a thousand drafts for an essay?
Some are bound to be perfect, by now though, if the dude has any intelligence in his design.

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-18-2006 2:28 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

limbosis
Member (Idle past 6279 days)
Posts: 120
From: United States
Joined: 12-06-2006


Message 94 of 302 (370649)
12-18-2006 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by RAZD
12-17-2006 9:04 PM


Re: hypothesis ready for testing?
...what can we derive from it as a testable hypothesis that make a clear and testable distinction between it and evolution?
That's an easy one. But, before I disclose that, let me just say this:
I believe in my heart that faith should be accepted as a gift. It should not be abused, or otherwise mutilated. I also believe that honesty is not just the best policy in most cases, it is the ONLY policy. One of the indicators of value in this universe would have to be open communication. When concealment takes place, then objective distrust is a sound position. This is because one of the most insidious limitions of language is deception itself. Two plus two is five, for example.
When one goes about demanding faith from its subjects, under what could easily be considered unreasonable circumstances, one should expect at least a fair amount of reciprocation. I believe that one of the commandments is thou shall not lie. I believe that hiding away when one has the capacity to present oneself amounts to a deception, a lie. It should be emphasized that, if the "God" from the bible was so powerful, then his commandments would work.
For me, the bottom line is that if we could not be expected to live with our designers, then we could not be expected to live with ourselves, and vice versa. I believe there is enough love and appreciation for everyone.
Now RAZD, what we can do to test a clear distinction between this and evolution is as follows:
We can try to make a single new animal species, on our own, through artificial selection.
Edited by limbosis, : to isolate a single mechanism

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2006 9:04 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Percy, posted 12-18-2006 2:38 PM limbosis has replied
 Message 120 by RAZD, posted 12-18-2006 8:29 PM limbosis has replied

limbosis
Member (Idle past 6279 days)
Posts: 120
From: United States
Joined: 12-06-2006


Message 95 of 302 (370654)
12-18-2006 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by platypus
12-17-2006 9:05 PM


Re: Putting the Car Before the Horse
...explain exactly how a change may come about. Is the change instantaneous? Does it happen to an organism? Or do the gods mess with an organism's sperm and induce the change in the offspring by some mysterious means?
I suppose it would be instantaneous, meaning once a "mutation" is incorporated into a particular genome, it is either viable or not. I don't know that it would necessarily happen to a set of parents, but it would understandably happen before the initial growth of a specimen. No, there aren't many mysterious means available anymore. I'm suggesting the genetic manipulation simply takes place in a lab of some kind.
What evidence would constitute a confirmation of this new mechanism? Does that evidence exist?
As mentioned in my previous post, the evidence would be an inability to carry out the process outlined by the theory of evolution. I imagine that evidence would have alway existed.
Notice that this is a big task that no creationist or IDer has stood up to, but I kinda like you limbosis. You are neither a creationist nor an IDer, nor bound by silly books or beliefs. You are an EDer, an Evil Designer proponent (yes, I think I coined that). You may just be able to give an answer to this question.
I kinda like you too, platypus.
Uh, I think it would be little e, little d...evil designer propent, eder or edist. I am not afraid. But, yes, I believe you did coin that.
Another question, because I'm curious. Did the creator(s) make one original species like a bacteria in the beginning and evolve everything from that, or were there separate groups in the beginning, like mammals and reptiles and such?
I don't know the answer to that for sure. But, it would be an excellent topic for discussion. From a design perspective, I would bet that it usually depends on the intended purpose of the organism itself, be it conditioning the atmosphere, poplulation control, keeping up appearances, you name it.
So let me get this straight- vestigial organs point to a designer that is either evil or stupid, and silly designs point to a designer with a sense of humor?
Okay, a designer that is evil, very stupid, and beyond silly...but that would be as far as I go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by platypus, posted 12-17-2006 9:05 PM platypus has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 96 of 302 (370655)
12-18-2006 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by limbosis
12-18-2006 2:00 PM


Re: hypothesis ready for testing?
limbosis writes:
Now RAZD, what we can do to test a clear distinction between this and evolution is as follows:
We can try to make a single new animal species, on our own, through artificial selection.
I think you actually mean "kind", not species. We've already created new species through artificial selection in laboratories, and also through genetic manipulation.
The significant problem in creating new "kinds" is not a scientific one but a semantic one. "Kind" is not a scientific term and so does not have a scientific definition. Without a proper definition it isn't possible for scientists to tell when they've created a new "kind."
Creationists usually talk in terms of the dog "kind", which includes dogs and wolves and so forth, and of the horse "kind", which includes horses and donkeys and zebras and so forth. This makes "kind" a rather broad category, and given the slow reproductive rates of mammals I think most scientists would concede that creating new "kinds" as part of any reasonable laboratory experiment simply isn't possible because of the long time periods (centuries at least) that would be required. Laboratory experiments require organisms with short generation periods, and so a definition of "kind" that applies to bacteria would likely be required.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by limbosis, posted 12-18-2006 2:00 PM limbosis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by kuresu, posted 12-18-2006 2:48 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 99 by limbosis, posted 12-18-2006 3:14 PM Percy has replied

limbosis
Member (Idle past 6279 days)
Posts: 120
From: United States
Joined: 12-06-2006


Message 97 of 302 (370656)
12-18-2006 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Dr Adequate
12-18-2006 2:28 AM


Re: More Thoughts On The Design Process
"Well I do have an idea ... it's kind of in the rough stages right now ... but if you'll hand me a reality pencil ... haven't you got a sharp one? Oh well, it's not important. Now, have you got a spare piece of continuum? No, the stains don't matter. Well, I was thinking ... hmmm ... and then this here like this ... can you tell what it is yet? ... and then the hadrons here like so ... don't jog my elbow! ... and then ... and, yah, what d'you think? It's just a rough three-dimensional sketch, but it gives you an idea. Yeah, I left out the feckles and the contrapotes 'cos they're so fiddly to draw. Anyway, that's the basic idea, but if you've got a spare trillion years we can discuss the concept over lunch."
Can you do that some more?
I don't know why, but somehow...somehow I know that's precisely how it happened.
But let's get to the obvious. You were serious in no way, shape, or form, right?
Right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-18-2006 2:28 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 98 of 302 (370657)
12-18-2006 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Percy
12-18-2006 2:38 PM


Re: hypothesis ready for testing?
the problem is, though, I don't think they would know the difference between the various bacteria to separate them into kinds.
it's that whole damn intuitive thing faith was always on. you just know a dog is a different kind from a cat. even though they are remarkably alike, and could potentially be put into the same kind.
how does one intuitively tell bacteria apart? I don't see how you can.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Percy, posted 12-18-2006 2:38 PM Percy has not replied

limbosis
Member (Idle past 6279 days)
Posts: 120
From: United States
Joined: 12-06-2006


Message 99 of 302 (370663)
12-18-2006 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Percy
12-18-2006 2:38 PM


Re: hypothesis ready for testing?
The significant problem in creating new "kinds" is not a scientific one but a semantic one. "Kind" is not a scientific term and so does not have a scientific definition. Without a proper definition it isn't possible for scientists to tell when they've created a new "kind."
Good point. And I've already suspected this. Perhaps the "Soldiers" in "K.P. Comes Often For Grumpy Soldiers" don't belong there. The last level may not even be appropriate, in terms of the actual logistic arrangement of the tree. The leaves may come and go but the branches stay put, so to speak. I wouldn't rule out the potential need to revise the hierarchy model.
Laboratory experiments require organisms with short generation periods, and so a definition of "kind" that applies to bacteria would likely be required.
Yeah, that is an unfortunate limitation to science. I can't say that we could use bacteria, though, because the mechanism of natural selection would not be available. I would propose that the most applicable, sexually-reproducing, actively-mate-selecting and shortest-living organism should be used if one were to go about this. I understand that it may take decades to carry out, even if it were possible. Yet, as I see it, it would be one of the primary responsibilities to the body of support for the theory of evolution itself.
Nice to meet you, by the way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Percy, posted 12-18-2006 2:38 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Percy, posted 12-18-2006 3:34 PM limbosis has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 100 of 302 (370666)
12-18-2006 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by limbosis
12-18-2006 3:14 PM


Re: hypothesis ready for testing?
limbosis writes:
I can't say that we could use bacteria, though, because the mechanism of natural selection would not be available.
Actually, natural selection applies more visibly and directly to bacteria than to sexually reproducing organisms. Its rapid generation time makes it a prime candidate for investigations into natural selection mechanisms. Of course, some types of natural selection can't be studied with bacteria, such as sexual selection, but that shouldn't be a problem.
The problem is to ask the question in such a way that a clear answer is possible. In other words, an experiment must be devised that has the potential for clear outcomes.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by limbosis, posted 12-18-2006 3:14 PM limbosis has not replied

NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4475 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 101 of 302 (370676)
12-18-2006 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by fallacycop
12-16-2006 8:39 AM


Re: Potentially dumb arguments for ID
Hi Fallc,
Could you name some of this scientists and what would be their rational for protesting darwinism and declaring it a pure unadutarated crap?
Here are few. Its from this site: http/evolution-facts.org
"Paleontologists [fossil experts] have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study."”*Steven Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1982), pp. 181-182 [Harvard professor and the leading evolutionary spokesman of the latter half of the twentieth century].
"The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . .
"Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."”*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331.
"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible."”*P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De L' Evolution?" Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937), p. 6.
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence."”*R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review, (May 27, 1983), p. 641.
"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."”*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."”*John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in "The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought."
"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses."”*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147.
"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end”no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."”I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).
"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us, is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."”*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman's Library issue of *Charles Darwin's, Origin of Species (1956 edition).
" `Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian called it]."”*The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].
" `The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake.' "”*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]
"[In Darwin's writings] possibilities were assumed to add up to probability, and probabilities then were promoted to certitudes."”*Agassiz, op. cit., p. 335.
"The origin of all diversity among living beings remains a mystery as totally unexplained as if the book of Mr. Darwin had never been written, for no theory unsupported by fact, however plausible it may appear, can be admitted in science."”L. Agassiz on the Origin of Species, American Journal of Science, 30 (1860), p. 154. [Darwin's book was published in 1859.]
"[Darwin could] summon up enough general, vague and conjectural reasons to account for this fact, and if these were not taken seriously, he could come up with a different, but equally general, vague and conjectural set of reasons."”*Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and Darwinian Revolution (1968), p. 319.
"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century . . the origin of life and of new beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the [ship] Beagle."”*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 358.
"It has been estimated that no fewer than 800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as `Let us assume,' or `We may well suppose,' etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin's Origin of Species alone."”L. Merson Davies [British scientist], Modern Science (1953), p. 7.
"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."”*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).
"Unfortunately for Darwin's future reputation, his life was spent on the problem of evolution which is deductive by nature . . It is absurd to expect that many facts will not always be irreconcilable with any theory of evolution and, today, every one of his theories is contradicted by facts."”*P.T. Mora, The Dogma of Evolution, p. 194.
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have, at best, a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors."”*S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982).
"In essence, we contend that neo-Darwinism is a theory of differential survival and not one of origin . .
"We are certainly not arguing here that differential survival of whole organisms does not occur. This must inevitably happen [i.e. some species become extinct]. The question that we must ask is, does this represent the controlling dynamic of organic evolution? Cannot a similar argument be equally well-constructed to `explain' any frequency distribution? For example, consider rocks which vary in hardness and also persist through time. Clearly the harder rocks are better `adapted' to survive harsh climatic conditions. As Lewontin points out, a similar story can be told about political parties, rumors, jokes, stars, and discarded soft drink containers."”*A.J. Hughes and *D. Lambert, "Functionalism, Structuralism, `Ways of Seeing,' " Journal of Theoretical Biology, 787 (1984), pp. 796-797.
"Biologists have indeed built their advances in evolutionary theory on the Darwinian foundation, not realizing that the foundation is about to topple because of Darwin's three mistakes.
"George Bernard Shaw wisecracked once that Darwin had the luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind. Well, I also have an axe to grind, but I am not pleased. We have suffered through two world wars and are threatened by an Armageddon. We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy."”*Kenneth Hsu, "Reply," Geology, 15 (1987), p. 177.
"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science."”*James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.
"It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really saying anything”or at least they are not science." ”*George G. Simpson, "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143 (1964) p. 770.
"In accepting evolution as fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus approved."”*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction," Origin of Species, Charles Darwin (1971 edition).
"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . .
"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."”*Pierre P. de Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.
"The over-riding supremacy of the myth [of evolution] has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research”paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology”has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth.
[In a letter to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology, Darwin wrote:] "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."”*Charles Darwin, quoted in *N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (1979), p. 2 [University of Chicago book].
"The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin's time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe."”*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by fallacycop, posted 12-16-2006 8:39 AM fallacycop has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Woodsy, posted 12-18-2006 5:03 PM NOT JULIUS has replied
 Message 105 by platypus, posted 12-18-2006 5:34 PM NOT JULIUS has replied
 Message 108 by limbosis, posted 12-18-2006 5:49 PM NOT JULIUS has not replied

NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4475 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 102 of 302 (370685)
12-18-2006 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Dr Adequate
12-15-2006 10:05 PM


Clarify what is nested heirarchy
Dr. Adequate,
Please agree or disagree w/ this statement: 'There is a nested heirarchy when there are commonalities among things, for w/o these common traits there will be no nested heirarchy'.
you wrote:
The hierachy of manuscripts does not have a maker. The scribes are analogous to chemical processes which are not intellegent, unlike scribes.
I am not talking about the heirarchy of manuscripts. I am talking about the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT. One question: Was there a maker of the Original Manuscript or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-15-2006 10:05 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-20-2006 8:17 AM NOT JULIUS has not replied

Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3374 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 103 of 302 (370693)
12-18-2006 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by NOT JULIUS
12-18-2006 3:56 PM


Re: Potentially dumb arguments for ID
Can you dig up anything more modern? (you might like to have a look at link, by the way)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-18-2006 3:56 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-18-2006 5:29 PM Woodsy has not replied
 Message 106 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-18-2006 5:37 PM Woodsy has not replied
 Message 107 by platypus, posted 12-18-2006 5:39 PM Woodsy has not replied

NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4475 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 104 of 302 (370704)
12-18-2006 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Woodsy
12-18-2006 5:03 PM


Re: Potentially dumb arguments for ID
Hi Woodsy,
Can you dig up anything more modern? (you might like to have a look at link, by the way)
Darwinism itself in not modern.
Oh well, there are opinion of pros and cons...on opinions about opinions. Anyway, how can I paste a .PDF list of scientists--w/ their names and affiliations-- who strongly doubts Darwinism. It is 13 pages long?
regards,
PJ

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Woodsy, posted 12-18-2006 5:03 PM Woodsy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 12-18-2006 8:20 PM NOT JULIUS has not replied

platypus
Member (Idle past 5754 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 105 of 302 (370706)
12-18-2006 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by NOT JULIUS
12-18-2006 3:56 PM


Re: Potentially dumb arguments for ID
All of these quotes can be summed up on one of three ideas:
1) "People (including myself) don't understand evolution."
2) "Studying evolution is difficult." (All of Gould's quotes)
3) "Darwin's theory hasn't stood up."
Let me examine:
1) Well if you don't understand it, why are you commenting on it? It makes a lot of sense to 99% of the biology community, and to bioengineering companies that design anti-influenza vaccines, and stem-cell researchers, and to cancer researchers, and to HIV researchers...
I mean, one of these quote is cited as "H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physic Bulletin." One physicist writing about evolution in a physics journal. By his quote, he is obviously not familiar with evoutionary research- not a big surprise that he doesn't understand it.
2) Well, ain't that a fact. You know what, ALL SCIENCE IS HARD. That's why we still do science. That's why we don't know everything yet. Science is complicated. But that's no reason to stop doing science, or to stop trusting a scientific idea. Yes evolution is complicated, yes many different ideas have been thrown around in the last 100 years about evolution, yes there is no conclusive mathematical evidence for the evolution of all animals. But some amazingly informative research has been conducted on the various aspects of evolution, and have confirmed them to be true.
3) Darwin's theory has certainly undergone some revisions over the years. Also, Darwin did not offer any testable predictions, thus what he offered was more of a natural history account than a scientific theory. But I believe that the Origin of Species is one of the most convincing books about evolution that one can read. It isn't a science article, and treating it like one is unfair. But it is an extremely convincing account of the nature of the world. Most of Darwin's uncertainty was in the heriditary unit that passed on traits, and how it operated. This was completely solved by the discovery of genetics and how genes operated. Statements like
The over-riding supremacy of the myth [of evolution] has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research”paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology”has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth.
are blatantly not true. More and more evidence has only continued to speak for evlution. How could such an illusion be propogated through these fields of biology? If such an illusion existed, wouldn't more, or even all, the students researching these fields be guided towards the real truth? Consider that the students doing this research are some of the most intelligent people in the country, and have undergone a scientific training which has taught them to be critical, especially of existing theories. It would frankly be a failure of their education if some of them did not have some critical comments about evolution. Do we see criticism of creationism from within the creationist community, if such a coherent thing can even be described? Of course not, they are not critical of their views, rather they are glad to find someone else who shares a similar viewpoint.
As one final point, I find it hard to imagine that some of these quotes were not taken out of context. Ok, I'm done ranting.

You hear evolutionist says we are descedant from apes and monkees. Sure, but that's not the point. All of life is related, not just human's with monkees. If you hug a tree, you're hugging a relative, a very distant relative, but a relative nonetheless." Dr. Joan Roughgarden in Evolution and Christian Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-18-2006 3:56 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by NOT JULIUS, posted 12-18-2006 5:57 PM platypus has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024