Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discontinuing research about ID
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 106 of 393 (755338)
04-07-2015 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by dwise1
04-04-2015 6:03 PM


That would be German. Though it would be interesting to learn whether other languages use it too.
Czech uses the same style, as in the following relevant excerpt from Czech Wikipedia:
quote:
Dal vdeck komunity s tmto tvrzenm souhlas, jin nazvaj ID junk science
Also worthwhile to note is that the closing quote marks point backwards.
This is due to historical German influence, but the English style of quotemarks are starting to appear in news sources (including Czech Television's website) due to the dominance of English language media. The old German way is still the "official" version approved by the Czech Language Institute though.
(off-topic, maybe, but more enlightening than most of what was written in this thread).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by dwise1, posted 04-04-2015 6:03 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 107 of 393 (755339)
04-07-2015 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Dubreuil
04-07-2015 2:08 PM


Perhaps you can be forgiven, having been raised on German TV (assuming that about your personal history). In the brief time that I watched German TV (a couple months in 1974), the structure of the programming was that the entire show would be shown and then at the end would be about 5 or more minutes of commercials. IOW, the continuity of the show was not broken up by commercial breaks.
US commercial TV is quite different. Hour-long programs were structured as four-act plays with a prologue, Act 1, Act 2, Act 3, Act 4, and epilogue with commercials inserted between each one -- in fact, the shows produced by Quinn Martin (eg, The FBI) would typically entitle each one as "Epilogue" or "Act 2" as appropriate; I also seem to remember it being done in The Invaders, but I'm not so sure about The Streets of San Francisco.
And each act of a program would end with a teaser or a mini-cliff-hanger. Some plot turn or a hint of a big revelation and the music would build and then we'd cut to a commercial. The purpose of that teaser was of course to engage the viewers' interest to not change the channel during the commercial. And those teasers would always be there every single time! Nothing the least bit random about it. That is simply how you did TV!
Well, in the USA at least. I grew up with it so I never gave it a second thought. Until I watched an episode of Die Strassen von San Francisco" on German TV and those teasers with the big build-up not being followed by a commercial break just jumped right out at me and I was suddenly made very aware of what US commercial TV was doing. We can get the same effect watching US TV shows on NetFlix.
Then last summer a Swedish comedy series, "Welcome to Sweden", played on US TV and I became aware of the opposite effect. I assume that Swedish TV's approach to commercial breaks are very similar to German TV (at least circa 1974) in that the program itself is not interrupted by commercial breaks. In the USA, the show would be playing and then suddenly in what appeared to be the middle of a scene there'd be a commercial. It would happen so suddenly and unexpectedly (there was, after all, no teaser nor any kind of build-up to the commercial) that it was quite jarring and irritating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Dubreuil, posted 04-07-2015 2:08 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3041 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 108 of 393 (755340)
04-07-2015 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by New Cat's Eye
04-07-2015 2:46 PM


Cat Sci writes:
So then you agree that your probability of it happening "solely" by chance is wrong and inappropriate.
There can be simple rules. From Message 95: "in the first 5 seconds a person appears". The probability was calculated for it happening solely by chance. The results showed that the pattern was not created solely by chance. That concurs with your opinion.
Cat Sci writes:
Well that's a particularly stupid and illogical thing to say. What makes you think that?
You have to read the full paragraph in Message 97 to read the arguments.
ThinAirDesigns writes:
Either way, you've done absolutely nothing to filter out human pattern introduction from your pattern.
From Message 97: "Chance itself has not created the pattern and any other natural origin can not have created the pattern because of the involvement of chance.". You have to read the full paragraph to read the arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-07-2015 2:46 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 04-07-2015 3:28 PM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 110 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-07-2015 3:31 PM Dubreuil has replied
 Message 117 by RAZD, posted 04-07-2015 4:14 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2373 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 109 of 393 (755341)
04-07-2015 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Dubreuil
04-07-2015 3:15 PM


Dubreuil writes:
"Chance itself has not created the pattern and any other natural origin can not have created the pattern because of the involvement of chance."
But as pointed out previously, that is simply false and illogical. The involvement of chance does not rule out the involvement of some other origin. A penny may fall heads up through chance or through any other endless combinations of inputs not related to chance. Simply repeating yourself or linking to a previous message and quoting something illogical and false does not address the silliness of the claim.
You have failed miserably to eliminate the obvious possibility that the patterns are created through the common needs of the media. You are merely asserting without evidence that it can't be.
JB
Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.
Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Dubreuil, posted 04-07-2015 3:15 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 110 of 393 (755342)
04-07-2015 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Dubreuil
04-07-2015 3:15 PM


You have to read the full paragraph in Message 97 to read the arguments.
I did. Its still retarded to say that the involvement of chance eliminates a natural origin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Dubreuil, posted 04-07-2015 3:15 PM Dubreuil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Dubreuil, posted 04-07-2015 3:52 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3041 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 111 of 393 (755348)
04-07-2015 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by New Cat's Eye
04-07-2015 3:31 PM


Cat Sci writes:
I did. Its still retarded to say that the involvement of chance eliminates a natural origin.
It eliminates a the possibility of a pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7. Do you agree there is an coincidental contribution? If so, then there should be a few episodes that doesn't fit with the pattern out of chance. That hasn't happened. A pattern with a residual uncertainty of 1:10^2 could be created by rules or chance or both, but not a pattern with 1:10^7.
ThinAirDesigns writes:
You have failed miserably to eliminate the obvious possibility that the patterns are created through the common needs of the media. You are merely asserting without evidence that it can't be.
Even in this case the results would be remarkeble. That there is one significant pattern in every told story hasn't been shown before. That this pattern also holds a reference about a triune God is also remarkable. This wasn't criticised yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-07-2015 3:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-08-2015 9:59 AM Dubreuil has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 112 of 393 (755350)
04-07-2015 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Dubreuil
04-07-2015 12:01 PM


Further clarification part 1
RAZD writes:
So you are ONLY talking about the first 2 minutes of the introduction/s to the episodes and not to the whole episodes, and that is where you find your pattern.
Yes.
Which you further clarify in Message 97:
The first two minutes are mostly "Teasers": Cold open - Wikipedia.
You will read there: "On television, this is often done". ...
If I were going to pick the one part of these shows to be the most formulaic it would be these opening "teasers" ... they "set the scene" for the episode. In plays there is "the prologue" that does the same. This is a standard theatrical device.
This part of the show would also be the most controlled by the directorial staff regardless of who writes the episode, kind of like the first paragraph in a newspaper article with the "who, what, where, when, why and how" elements.
... Often, not always. The rules how to create the first minutes are very different for different series and episodes. To create the first minutes in a very different way than it is normally done can also increase it's popularity. We should therefore expect that patterns will normally be ignored in the first minutes.
This is your assumption unsupported by any evidence. Curiously I expect the opposite.
The opening credits are strict formula with the theremin-like music and the intoning of the stock
"Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before." ...
You repeat this claim in Message 93:
TV shows as whole are developed, but the first few minutes are not developed in the same way for every episode.
Again I disagree. The "teasers" for mystery shows are pretty formulaic in previewing who is going to be charged (wrongly) with what crime, for example.
To make a claim of expectation of variation you would need to provide evidence that this was the case, not a calculation showing there is a pattern and an assumption that there should not be one.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Dubreuil, posted 04-07-2015 12:01 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 113 of 393 (755351)
04-07-2015 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Dubreuil
04-07-2015 12:01 PM


Further clarification part 2
RAZD writes:
So even with 14 different "triggers" P.A1 only appears in 11 out of 15 episodes?
No. E1 to E15 are the 15 events from the pattern. Message 28 explains what the pattern is. There is an exemplary pattern with E1 to E4 explained and how the fit was tested. The actual pattern has 15 parts. You can also read the example in words on page 6 in the paper.
Well I for one am still having some trouble figuring out what your pattern is, as it seems you have made your discussion of it very complex, imho.
Let's pretend that I am very simple minded, a doddering old man or a young child, and you are trying to explain to me what the pattern is: use words and try to be as explicit as you can be.
If I can go back to my tree ring example I can see the most recent rings from the older chronology making this pattern:
{}BABBABCCBCBACB ...(etc)
(where {} represents the first ring measured) and when I look at the most recent rings from the (18 year) newer chronology I see:
{}bcbaababacbbabbacbBABBABCCBCBACB ...(etc)
(where lowercase is used for the years that came after the older chronology and the last "b" is the {} location of the beginning of the older chronology).
Now this is rather obviously a distinct pattern (and one that becomes statistically more unique the longer the trinary pattern is measured) that can be matched with other trees.
Can you spell out your pattern simply? Inquiring minds want to know ...
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Dubreuil, posted 04-07-2015 12:01 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 114 of 393 (755354)
04-07-2015 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Dubreuil
04-07-2015 12:01 PM


Further clarification part 3
RAZD writes:
Curiously the fact that these "triggers" seem to be rather arbitrary (ie unrelated to one another of the same category) leads me to the conclusion that your "pattern" is an artifact of your analysis rather than a pattern in the tv show.
I maybe was too diligent about this. Only a few of these options are actually necessary. After I introduced P.Al for everytime more than 5 person are visible I noticed that the named elements tended to appear only if P.Al appears too and added them to P.Al then. ...
A most bizarre, imho, approach for someone looking for patterns. Why not have them a separate elements and their appearance being included as part of the pattern?
... I probably could remove the most of this options without affecting the pattern. But with the additional options the pattern has a higher predictive power. If I would remove for example stones or the number 4, then stone and the number 4 could appear randomly. Attached to P.Al they are only allowed to appear at 11 out of 15 events.
Or conversely, P.A1 appears in 11 out of 15 events because they are added to the P.A1 profile and there would be fewer appearances without them (which then makes the "pattern" an artifact of lumping them all under one category).
If you think you can remove elements and still maintain your pattern then they are not essential to the pattern and should NOT be included in the profile/s: Occam's Razor suggests that you use the simplest explanation first, and only increase the complexity when it is needed to explain the evidence.
It appears that you methodology needs review.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Dubreuil, posted 04-07-2015 12:01 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 115 of 393 (755355)
04-07-2015 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Dubreuil
04-07-2015 2:44 PM


Then the residual uncertainty about a triune God is an answer:
No it isn't. Here's a short list of other things that aren't answers.
* 17.
* Marmalade.
* Yes, but only if you use plenty of lubricant.
* Wuthering Heights.
* Excuse me, my yak has overheated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Dubreuil, posted 04-07-2015 2:44 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2373 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 116 of 393 (755356)
04-07-2015 4:08 PM


Dubreuil, what is your experience in the industry of TV? Do you have any? Have you been trained in writing or producing scripts? Do you have some related expertise to help support the many assertions you are making about the way TV shows are constructed?
JB

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 117 of 393 (755358)
04-07-2015 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Dubreuil
04-07-2015 3:15 PM


Further Clarification part 4
There can be simple rules. From Message 95: "in the first 5 seconds a person appears". The probability was calculated for it happening solely by chance. The results showed that the pattern was not created solely by chance. That concurs with your opinion.
Can you envisage an introductory "teaser" segment that does NOT include a "person" appearing in the opening seconds?
Can I take it from this that the first part\element of your "pattern" is: "a person appears" (which sounds a lot like stage directions imho).
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : st
Edited by RAZD, : 1st element

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Dubreuil, posted 04-07-2015 3:15 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 118 of 393 (755363)
04-07-2015 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Dubreuil
04-07-2015 12:01 PM


Further clarification part 5
RAZD writes:
So the ONLY role of ID in this paper is that IF ID is present, THEN it can be found (will result) in a pattern, ... and the follow-up claim is that IF a pattern emerges. THEN ID can be inferred. Yes?
If ID is present at the present time, then it COULD have been involved in the origin of life. That is not a main part of the paper, the paper is about testing at the present time.
Curiously my point is that this paper in reality is not about demonstrating the presence of ID, it is just saying that ID could be used to explain (X), but with no substantiation that it is needed to explain (X). It seems you have a problem understanding causality (this btw is Dr A's argument) and, more importantly, how to demonstrate it.
IF ID is present, THEN it could be found in a pattern. ...
ANY pattern? or should we find it in ALL patterns (or just hope to "get lucky")?
... If there is no other explanation like chance, conscious or unconscious human behaviour or other restraints left, then it COULD be ID. ...
or not. That is not an explanation based on knowledge of the cause, but an argument based on the absence of knowledge of the cause, and the presumptive assumption of an unknown causal agent. Also called "wishful thinking."
In other words, you are claiming that anything that cannot be explained must be evidence of design? That because you cannot think of another explanation that it must by default be *miracle of miracles* {GOD}. Ever heard of "god of the gaps?"
... It's an indication that intelligent design exists at the present time. That it could be caused by ID and not by magic little pigs is inferred from the residual uncertainty of 1:10^3 about a triune God: Message 39.
How about 3 invisible pigs?
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Dubreuil, posted 04-07-2015 12:01 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 119 of 393 (755369)
04-07-2015 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Dubreuil
04-07-2015 12:26 PM


The other is the residual uncertainty of 1:10^3 about a triune God.
So my Native American friends are right about Eagle, Hummingbird, and Coyote?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Dubreuil, posted 04-07-2015 12:26 PM Dubreuil has not replied

  
Dubreuil
Member (Idle past 3041 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 04-02-2015


Message 120 of 393 (755378)
04-07-2015 6:57 PM


RAZD writes:
The opening credits are strict formula with the theremin-like music and the intoning of the stock
"Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before."
The opening credits and not included, they are always the same. They start at (03:00-07:00). Only the first two minutes are mostly quantised.
RAZD writes:
Again I disagree. The "teasers" for mystery shows are pretty formulaic in previewing who is going to be charged (wrongly) with what crime, for example.
To make a claim of expectation of variation you would need to provide evidence that this was the case, not a calculation showing there is a pattern and an assumption that there should not be one.
Beginnings that highly differ:
3x01: starts with someone sleeping
3x02: starts with a concert
3x06: starts on a beach
3x10: starts with reciting a novel
3x14: starts in an art class
3x15: starts in a bar
3x19: starts without the main cast
3x21: starts with a caricature of reality
4x06: starts with poker
4x08: starts with a birthday party
4x10: starts with a psychological counselling meeting
4x13: starts with reciting an other novel
4x14: starts with random leisure activities
4x15: starts in a hospital
4x18: starts with viewing an old video
4x19: starts with reciting a third novel
4x21: starts with an interrogation
4x23: starts in a shuttle
The three other series don't have teasers and an other main cast.
RAZD writes:
Well I for one am still having some trouble figuring out what your pattern is, as it seems you have made your discussion of it very complex, imho.
Let's pretend that I am very simple minded, a doddering old man or a young child, and you are trying to explain to me what the pattern is: use words and try to be as explicit as you can be.
If I can go back to my tree ring example I can see the most recent rings from the older chronology making this pattern:
{}BABBABCCBCBACB ...(etc)
Every appearance will be quantified. A pattern like this can emerge in 4 different episodes:
*P.Pi, *P.Ri,....................*P.LF, *P.Wo, *P.Tr, *P.Wo, *P.Tr, *P.Da, *P.Ya
*P.Pi, *P.Ri, *P.Pi, *P.Ri, *P.LF, *P.Wo,...............................*P.Da, *P.LF
*P.Ya,............................*P.LF, *P.Tr,..................................*P.Da, *P.Ya
*P.Ya, *P.Ri, *P.Ya,.........*P.LF, *P.Wo,...............................*P.Da, *P.LF
This is rather obviously a distinct pattern. It can be divided into different parts called "events"
E1: *P.Pi, *P.Ri, *P.Ya can appear, no one else
E2: *P.LF can appear, no one else
E3: *P.Wo, *P.Tr can appear, no one else
E4: *P.Da can appear, no one else
E5: *P.LF, *P.Ya can appear, no one else
with E1->E2->E3->E4->E5
This pattern was created from 4 episodes. Now it is tested on 10 more episodes and does fit with 9 episode and doesn't fit with one episode. That is already a good fit for the distinct pattern. To exclude that the pattern is not only that random that it would fit always, it is tested on a random data source. The episodes have opening credits that always end at different times. Therefore the pattern is tested at this later starting point with 10 episode. This time the pattern does fit 3 times and doesn't 7 times. The probability for the pattern to be caused through random data is 0.3. Therefore the pattern is distinct enough to not only fit with every random data source. How likely it is that only a random fluctuation would yield a distinct pattern like that can be calculated with the probability mass function.
Appearances that doesn't fit:
*P.Pi, *P.Ri, *P.Wo??
*P.Pi, *P.LF, *P.Ri??
*P.Pi, *P.LF, *P.Wo, *P.LF??
*P.Pi, *P.LF, {*P.Wo??, *P.LF}
For the actual pattern were also P.Pi+, P.Pi- and 12 additional observations quantised. The pattern was created out of season 1, 3 and 4. Afterwards it was tested on season 5 and 6 (95% fit) and a random data source (63% fit). For three other series the pattern was tested for, the pattern did fit 66 times and didn't fit 1 time.
RAZD writes:
If you think you can remove elements and still maintain your pattern then they are not essential to the pattern and should NOT be included in the profile/s
You could be right about that. For example it should be easily possible to remove "green", "big/wide/a lot", "lack of knowledge", "do nothing", "very old", "standby", "science", "stone", "death" and "4" without affecting anything. Only to remove "holiday" and "starships" would change something. There are often similarities like "a science starship" or similarities between "very old" and "death" therefore I added them there. The removable elements appear also at the events of P.Al, but they don't cause a next event, therefore it is unimportant if they are a part of P.Al or not. To observe the behaviour of these elements I preliminary added them to P.Al.
"holiday" and "starships" was added to P.Al to make it fit with season 1, 3 and 4. It should not affect the distinctness of the pattern for season 5 and 6 therefore. Even if so, it would not significantly reduce the certainty about the pattern. 5.3 sigma is a very high certainty.
RAZD writes:
Can you envisage an introductory "teaser" segment that does NOT include a "person" appearing in the opening seconds?
A new event wouldn't be triggered until a person appears.
ThinAirDesigns writes:
Dubreuil, what is your experience in the industry of TV? Do you have any? Have you been trained in writing or producing scripts? Do you have some related expertise to help support the many assertions you are making about the way TV shows are constructed?
No. I referred to Cold open - Wikipedia and the mathematics about the pattern.
RAZD writes:
or not. That is not an explanation based on knowledge of the cause, but an argument based on the absence of knowledge of the cause, and the presumptive assumption of an unknown causal agent. Also called "wishful thinking."
The pattern has a high residual uncertainty. Random effects or random preferences by one of the hundred persons that were involved in it would cause more episodes to not fit with the pattern and drastically reduce the certainty about it. The involvement of chance would normally prevent patterns like this. Chance itself also wasn't the cause as calculated with the probability mass function. It is true that this doesn't exactly demonstrate the presence of ID, but it points to something unknown, a force or bias that creates nontrivial structures out of chance/nowhere. That's what the ID proponents claim, that the origin and evolution of life needs an additional information creating process because they can't believe it happened naturally. I wasn't concerned long enough with the origin and evolution of life to be able to tell if this claims have any substance.

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 04-07-2015 7:17 PM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 122 by Theodoric, posted 04-07-2015 8:27 PM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 123 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-08-2015 7:39 AM Dubreuil has not replied
 Message 130 by RAZD, posted 04-08-2015 2:59 PM Dubreuil has replied
 Message 205 by RAZD, posted 04-20-2015 8:22 PM Dubreuil 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