|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
But if we were not related, why would it? If we were not related, why would we even THINK it would work? Why didn't YECs think of it? The insulin will work in humans regardless of whether anyone thinks we're "related" to cows and pigs or not."Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt." -- motto of the Special Olympians
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Show us one that supports your no-uncertainty-whatsoever version.
What a pity you can't cite a dictionary that supports your hill-billy version of the English language. Dredge writes:
A lot of people, like you, claim to "know something to be a fact" when they're dead wrong, like you. If someone claims to "know" something, it means something like "I know it to be fact". Argument from popularity is no more valid than argument from dictionary."Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt." -- motto of the Special Olympians
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4
|
Phat includes "Essentially yada` means: (1) to know by observing and reflecting (thinking), and (2) to know by experiencing."
I did not know that! This throws the whole Seinfeld "yada yada yada" episodes into a sharper focus."I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside." Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned! Enjoy every sandwich! - xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Sludge writes: Tanypteryx writes:
Why? medicine DOES know about universal common ancestry and the more you know the more likely you will be able to find models for human health issues. That's how it works, knowledge increases, built upon past discoveries. Why don't you know this?Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned! What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
It hardly seems worth the effort, his proposed topic The New Intelligent Design and Its Discoveries and Its Curiosities is the same pathetic gibberish and flawed reasoning as his prior threads. It's almost as if he doesn't remember that everything he said on earlier visits was completely refuted.
Mr ID writes: Hi, I just wanted to share to you the new Intelligent Design. I am the father and founder of it. We remember your delusions of grandeur.
Mr ID writes: Either the invented definitions are not part of reality and must be changed, or we need to reinvent another realities, fantasies, perhaps, like Evolution. Thus, somebody must discovered the real and actual definitions and descriptions of those words - testable, usable, numerical, universal and scientific - to be used both in science and in reality, so that we could explain reality better. That is real naturalistic science. Maybe Mr. ID and Dredge could get together and redefine scientific jargon...Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned! What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
He has graduated to new media. Instead of a self-published unprofessional manuscript he is into YouTube vids.
Science by YouTube video. Still cannot show examples or efficacy. Sabine Hossenfelder he's not.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Science by YouTube video. Still cannot show examples or efficacy. Sabine Hossenfelder he's not. More like Dr. Alphonse Mephisto.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned! What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
MrID writes: Message 1 Now we are discussing in science. I think that you are talking science too. If you are going to ask a scientist (even here) this simple question:​ "is biological cell intelligently designed or not?" (ID) That's easy, biological cells are not designed.
MrID writes: They could never answer that. We have dictionaries. We have invented definitions and descriptions of "intelligence". Why they could never answer that simple real question?​ Sometimes, I gave them another options. I used another words for "intelligence". Here they are: ​ "is biological cell intentionally designed or not?" (ID) Biological cells are not designed.
MrID writes:
​ Or​ "is biological cell importantly designed or not?" (ID) ​Biological cells are not designed. MrID writes: Or​ "is biological cell smartly designed or not?" ​Biological cells are not designed.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned! What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Over in his older topic, The Power of the New Intelligent Design..., I discussed the matter of intelligent design based on my own professional experience as an intelligent designer -- I'm a retired software engineer. Refer to such messages as Message 83, Message 283, Message 290, Message 467, Message 469, Message 470.
Also, as a retired software engineer I have far more practical experience than MrID (self-described civil engineer who designs bridges and the like) in the dichotomy and struggle between the engineering concepts of elegance and complexity. Engineers strive for elegance in their designs, minimizing the design in both size and complexity to the simplest it can be and still be functional -- eg, a bridge consisting of a single solid block of concrete would work, but it would be far from elegant whereas a suspension bridge would be much more elegant. Complexity -- especially excessive complexity -- must be avoided as much as possible in designs, but that is not always possible. Unlike something simple and straightforward like a bridge or building, software becomes very complex very quickly, especially if we use an evolutionary approach to design. So often in software projects, we are not given the time nor funding to write it from scratch, so we take existing code in a product that is somewhat similar to the new product yet very different and we modify that pre-existing code to perform a new function. Then in the life cycle of that product we go in to tweak the code or to copy and modify sections of code to perform new functionality, etc, in an analogy of how evolution works. And the end result is very high levels of complexity, levels so high that even the programmers have difficulty understanding what the code does (as we must try when fixing bugs -- [voice=road_trip_song]99 bugs in the code, take one bug and fix it, 117 bugs in the code[/voice]). An intelligent design is recognizable by its elegance. Products of evolution are recognizable by their extreme complexity akin to a Rube Goldberg machine, the furthest thing from an intelligent design What we see in nature is so extremely complex that it makes Rube Goldberg machines appear elegant in comparison. When we see something in nature that is highly complex, then that is evidence of evolution, not of any "intelligent designer". And that's not even mentioning how entire sections of an intelligent design can be redesigned with completely different components and tech, something that evolution could never do. The example I've given is:
DWise1 writes: Another intelligent design aspect of OOP is the ability to replace objects with entirely new object that have the same interface -- in hardware design, that would be a pin-compatible module. Internally, the new class could work entirely differently than the old one (eg, old one had a fixed set of dummy data points used for design testing whereas the new one would actually generate live data) and the program would not know the difference since they both look and behave the same (ie, they both have the same interface which is the program's only access to them). That is how you can replace an automotive component that used electro-mechanical relays with one that used transistors and then that with one that used integrated circuits and the car wouldn't know any different. You could even replace an American car engine with a Japanese engine and the car wouldn't know any different. Now that's intelligent design. To take the intermittent windshield wipers analogy further, automotive engineering made ingenious use of the engine's vacuum line to many ends, such as pop-up headlights and intermittent windshield wipers (possibly also to power windshield wipers if we go back far enough). But then solid state electronics offered a much simpler and more elegant design -- before the invention of the transistor (1947), imagine using vacuum tube electronics to control your windshield wipers. The point is that if evolution had produced something like intermittent windshield wipers, it never could have switched from the vacuum line to electronics, whereas intelligent design could. And what do we observe in nature? Products of evolution, not of intelligent design.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Depletion deletion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Percy writes:
Android
What browser and machine type are you using (Windows? Mac? iPhone? Android?). I'll investigate the possible ways a superscript 6 could get inserted in a textbox (other than cut-n-pasting).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
ringo writes:
A YEC would use science to develop vaccines like any other scientist would.
a YEC could develop vaccines only by using actual science instead of YEC nonsense
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
The insulin will work in humans regardless of whether anyone thinks we're "related" to cows and pigs or not.ringo writes:
Scientists would have thought of experimenting with insulin from non-human animals with or without the theory of universal common descent.
But if we were not related, why would it? If we were not related, why would we even THINK it would work? Why didn't YECs think of it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
Sludge writes: Scientists would have thought of experimenting with insulin from non-human animals with or without the theory of universal common descent. Funny how none of them tried it before the theory of common descent.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned! What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
They would coulda shoulda. But they didn't? Why not? Scientists would have thought of experimenting with insulin from non-human animals with or without the theory of universal common descent. And why didn't YECs think of it? Why doesn't YEC "science" produce ANYTHING useful?" For the same reason flat-earth 'science" didn't take us to the moon: garbage in, garbage out."Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt." -- motto of the Special Olympians
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024