|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: NEWSFLASH: Schools In Georgia (US) Are Allowed To Teach About Creation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ahmad,
quote: quote: Where was the sarcasm? I have read the actual paper (http://nsmserver2.fullerton.edu/...reation/web/Thornhill.pdf), & find no support for IC structures as defined by creationists. That is, a structure such that at least one of its components is essential, with its loss rendering the whole structure absolutely nonfunctional. Meaning that the structure had to have been designed, & could not have evolved (or some such). Thornhill & Ussery take care to define IC as:
quote: Your cite agrees with me that T&U’s definition of IC differs from Behes. I have no problem with your cites definition, except that IC cannot arise by evolutionary mechanisms. Perhaps I should have more accurately stated the question as; Can you provide any scientific literature that concludes that no IC structure can have evolved? The ORIGINAL SOURCE for your cite explicitly provides a general mechanism in order to explain the above IC using their definition, & certainly doesn’t conclude the opposite.
quote: quote: Once again, where was the sarcasm?
quote: IC (as creationists define it) most definitely ISN’T evident. If it were, you would be able to produce a paper that concludes that an IC structure couldn’t evolve. Let us not get hung on definitions, unless I explicitly state otherwise, I will be using the creationist meaning of IC, that is, that an IC system cannot have evolved. This contention has NEVER been demonstrated, it is therefore NOT evident.
quote: quote: My point precisely, hardly an explosion. Not all the organisms appear at the base of the explosion, do they?
quote: quote: Ahmad, do you read your own cites? You claim to have refuted my argument that the Cambrian explosion was an event taking millions of years? Your cite agrees with me.
quote: quote: quote: Nope, see above, noting lend credence to the theory that a long evolutionary fuse preceded the Cambrian explosion. Furthermore, it is not dated, since it has long been known that highly derived trilobites appear at the earliest strata of the CE. And, as I have noted, & you have failed to respond, metazoans pre-date the explosion by a considerable period.
quote: quote: Wrong. The ediacarans are multicellular animals that lived in the upper proterozoic. True, there is debate as to whether they are metazoans or parazoans, but the fact remains that multicellular animals existed in the Precambrian. Shelly fossils, true metazoans, commonly called the Tommotian fauna existed in the Precambrian 570 mya, pre-dating the Cambrian by 30 million years. Also cnidarians are true metazoans & have representatives in the Precambrian. http://www.uwsp.edu/...hefferan/Geol106/CLASS5/TOMMOTIAN.htm
quote: A Vendian Scene (Ediacara & cnidarians, themselves a metazoan phyla), yesterday.
What does this remind you of? A trilobite? Would you be surprised to learn that this fossil predates the Cambrian by 20 million years plus? Spriggina "Spriggina was described as an annelid (segmented worm), but it now appears to be related to the arthropods, although Spriggina had no hard parts, and it is unclear exactly what kind of appendages it had. Compare it to our pictures of trilobites and see what you think!" It is important to note that the Cambrian onset was 543 mya, & was recently placed at this juncture to mark the onset of the Cambrian explosion. Anything before 543 mya was before the Cambrian explosion.
quote: quote: You miss the point. You are insisting on appearances of fossils as being abrupt/instant in the fossil record, so following the same logic, a new discovery of a species must mean the same thing, right? The organism was created on the day of its discovery, what else could explain the fact that it has never been seen before? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Popular magazines are for-profit and publish articles which are directed at a general audience. Professional science journals are not for profit. They are the place where scientists publish their work. They are peer-reviewed, which means that a committee of experienced scientists in the field (Evolutionary Biologists would review Evolutionary Biology papers submitted to an Evolutionary Biology Journal, for example) reviews the work submitted by scientists for methodological soundness, to see if their statistical work is good, to make sure they took into account other explanations from past research that might apply to their work, etc. Usually a paper is not accepted for publication on first submission and it is sent back along with suggestions for how to improve it, what additional experiments might need to be conducted to get better data, etc. If the revisions are relatively minor then it will be resubmitted after these are completed and probably accepted for publication. Certain journals, likd Nature and Science are very prestigious and difficult to get into because they encompass all of science and only publish very important or groundbreaking work. Other more specialized journals are also prestigious within their fields; Psychological Review, for example, is one of the most important journals to get published in if you are a research Psychologist.
quote: It's not that they lie, it's just that they do not represent evidence from research in the same way as the professional literature does. It is not as reliable because it has been filtered through editors and writers. It would be like quoting from the Reader's Digest version of War and Peace instead of the original. Who knows how the meanings have been changed?
quote: quote: Look, most non-Creationist scientists never get published in Nature, either. I hat to break it to you, but since Creation science is based upon divine revelation rather than evidence, and since most Creationists spend their time trying to tear down Evolution rather than doing their OWN research, I doubt that any Creationist has even submitted for publication in the first place. Why should science jounals publish non-science?
quote: quote: LOL! See above for what peer-review means.
quote: A "statement" is a commentary. The point remains that a statement is not evidence from a journal article.
quote: So? This refutes Evolution how?
[QUOTE]So a thermodynamic system without an energy conversion mechanism of some sort is not advantageous for evolution, be it open or closed.[QUOTE]
Since, by definition, life arose with the ability to perform this conversion, what is your point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
We can simplify the 2LoT debate greatly if you wouuldn't mind pointing out which specific step in evolution violates the 2LoT.
There's no outcry in the physics community about the 2LoT being violated and posting 22 year old out of context articles from ahem- chemical engineering industry publications doesn't serve your case particularly well either.
quote: It seems your understanding of entropy needs work. Can you expound on the mechanism by which intelligence affects the thermodynamic properties of adiabatically closed systems (without resorting to analogy)? How do you define intelligence in this context? Seems to me the higher being's getting his energy from the sun. PE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Despite the name, Science Magazine is a journal like Nature. A subscription even costs about the same as Nature, about $150/year, less if you're a student.
2LOT is a basic principle of the natural world. The simplest way of stating 2LOT is in terms of a closed system, but of course it applies to all systems, both open and closed. Another simple way of stating 2LOT: "Heat always flows toward cold and never the reverse unless work is done." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
quote: Don't get too excited. The response for adrenaline won't do you any good. Frank Steiger has already been refuted by Wallace here >> http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp So, you were saying......
quote: Oh Shapiro is an agnostic and an evolutionist. As I have seen, many evolutionists have criticised Shapiro for his works on Abiogenesis. Thats why I mentioned him.
quote: I don't think so. Fred Hoyle was a darwinist critic. Remember the Boeing-747 story? His book, "Mathematics of evolution" where he introduces the Panspermia theory as an alternative to the theory of evolution. He is also author of "Why neo-darwinism does not work?" and "The Intelligent Universe". What makes you say that Hoyle's an evolutionist is queer.
quote: Behe is a theistic evolutionist (as I remember) but not sure. His book on IC explains the different co-ordination in organelles in systems. Why do you classify it as "God of the Gaps" book?
quote: You have not used one iota of evidence to back up your claim. Hence, its a baseless assertion. As as I know, Dembski, who previously taught at Northwestern University, the University of Notre Dame, and the University of Dallas and has a Ph.D in philosphy and Mathematics, can hardly be called "ignorant".
quote: Phillip Johnson, even though he's a lawyer, makes excellent points against evolution. You have the right to question his credentials, but his articles, on reading, will not provoke you to. "Law professor Phillip Johnson is a legal philosopher whose books on Darwinian speculation have shaken the liberal establishment and embarrassed doctrinaire naturalism." (Insight Mag)
quote: Some, I have, some I will Insha Allah.
quote: So pop-press books by Dawkins, Grasse all spread lies? I am sure they bear some weight to my argument.
quote: I will try to cite, as frequesntly as possible, from Journals henceforth but the quotation from various books by known authors will not cease. I do agree that the books are at least 30 years old but the fact that they are still recognized as authority in the scientific community is what matters.
quote: Dated. Timothy Wallace has a rebut for that site here >> http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp
quote: Talk origins is a biased website that only seeks to uphold the materialistic philosophy of Darwin. It takes advantage of the little knowledge of their readers to propagate baseless and unscientific asserions. Some deceptions of talkorigins is outlines by Jorge Fernandez here >> http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.aspThat site will be very useful to you. quote: Science need not be twisted for religious purposes and Harun Yahya is not a religious leader.
quote: Lets just wait and see..
quote: "One thing that interested us is that there are 500 thousand to 1 million Alu repeats across the human genome," says Ramin Shiekhattar, Ph.D., an associate professor at The Wistar Institute and senior author on the Nature study. "These sequences are very common. And this makes sense if one of their roles is to bind to the bridging proteins, the cohesins, to keep the replicated DNA sisters together until it is time for them to separate. Multiple bridging sites throughout the DNA would be needed for this system to work. They couldn't be unique sequences." I got this from Science Daily >> http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2002/08/020830072103.htm Surely you will regard this information about the Unjunk "Junk DNA" trsutworthy unless...... Science daily is another pop-press Journal, as you call it.
quote: IC is evident. It is observable. It has been found in ATP synthase molecule, the hsp70 genome, cilia, bacterial flagellum etc. Regarding your last statement, there is no proof for any evolutionary pathway for blood clotting, is there?
quote: Hmmm.... evidence for the Non-Existence of the Creator
quote: By numerous ways: 1. collecting empirical evidence2. applying logic 3. determining possibilities 4. determining the root cause There are others, but these are the ones at my head now.
quote: The very essense of religion is to believe in God. How does that contradict science?
quote: Logical investigation of a phenomenon, process, or a mechanism. Determining causes and effects. Drawing conclusions taking all the scientific criterias at hand, in consideration. Comparison; by comparing the particular phenomenon to others that have been established as facts, scientists can have a better understanding of it. Classification; After comparison, we can classify this phenomenon under a category that satisifies all the criterias of the phenomenon. Then the phenomenon is theorized depending largely on the emprical evidence. There are many different strategies by which we can understand the nature, function, properties of the phenomenon making them available in flow-charts, concept maps, venn diagrams, mind maps etc etc. I hope I made some sense.
quote: I am not a scientist to satisfactorily answer that question but as a student I think....... real science deals with Logic, Rationality and Reason. Pseudoscience, OTOH, is quite the opposite. It works with conclusions drawn by relative observations but not based on empirical evidence as real science. However, I don't think there any such thing as pseudoscience (come to think of it) as it is oxymoron.
quote: Pseudo science is not science in the first place. Finding differences between pseudoscience and religion would be futile then. Religion is a way of life ordained by God to His creations. As a Muslim, I believe there always has been one true religion, Islam (literally defined as submission to the Will of God).Pseudoscience, however, upholds superstiton and materialism which is in complete contrast with religion.
quote: ;Sigh.... and now you ask me. But I will try to respond nonetheless: let me ask you this first, WHY do you want to differentiate between Science and Religion?The very purpose for this differentiation seems null and void. On insistance, Science works by reason and logic and religion works by faith and reason (as I see it). However, it is strictly my opinion about it. Science and Religion go hand-in-hand as Einstein puts it: "Science without religion is Lame and Religion without Science is blind". Al-Hamdulillah, I rest my case!! Regards,Ahmad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Repeating the same crap does not make for a good argument. Or, two misunderstandings do not make an understanding.
quote: Panspermia isn't an alternative to evolution. It is an alternative to abiogenesis-- sort-of.
quote: Yup.
quote: None of the credentials have any bearing on whether his book is or is not an argument from ignorance. This sentence, however, does illustrate your ignorance of informal logic.
quote: No, but the books are written for a lay ausdience and use a lot of metaphor and not many equations. Metaphor can be misleading. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
quote: Ahmad, Other Einstein quotes: "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." "To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world. " "I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.... This is a somewhat new kind of religion." "I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it. " "have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. " "A man's moral worth is not measured by what his religious beliefs are but rather by what emotional impulses he has received from Nature during his lifetime. " "The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously" "If this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?" "Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being." Its a popular misconception that Einstein was a "God-believer" in the conventional sense and he is often quote mined, either for his "religion blind and lame" comment (as quoted by you) or the "god does not play dice with the universe", the general argument being that since Einstein understood a great deal about cosmology and was a very clever man, he would therefore be able to opine authoritatively on the nature of God. Its more accurate to say he was a pantheist, believing God and the material universe to be one and the same (similar to Spinoza). So no heaven, hell or houris, I'm afraid. Unless of course you don't agree with what Einstein had to say on religion. In which case you wouldn't be quoting him to support your argument. PE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ahmad Inactive Member |
I see many other responses. Due to Ramadan (a period when Muslims abstain from food and drink from dawn to dusk) and my final years exams, I might not be able to respond to each of the rebuts and arguments pronto. Insha Allah (if God willing), after Ramadan and my exams I will continue this productive dialog
Regards,Ahmad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ahmed,
quote: No, it isn't. IC (that cannot evolve) is a hypothesis, & an as yet untested one. For the record, I have no problem with IC as defined as "the quality of a structure such that at least one of its components is essential, with its loss rendering the whole structure absolutely nonfunctional". What I do have a problem with is your claim that this is EVIDENTLY UNEVOLVABLE. You simply don't know. By stating IC is evident you are making a circular argument. That is to say, the conclusion is the same as the premise. Let me put it another way. You believe there are IC systems that cannot evolve, right? This is your hypothesis, not your evidence. In order to test the hypothesis you are claiming that IC is evident. How? NO ONE HAS EVER DEMONSTRATED THE NON-EVOLVABILITY OF IC, so how can it possibly be evident? Therefore, in order to support/test your hypothesis, you need to show that it is IMPOSSIBLE for such a thing to occur. Can you? This is the only way we are going to get a deductive, objective answer. So far all you have done is cite an article that uses a paper that ACTUALLY proposes a mechanism for IC systems to evolve. This supports my contention, not yours. In science, a hypothesis is NOT self evident, it is circular, & a logical fallacy.
quote: It is YOU who are contending that these systems are unevolvable, not me. The burden of evidence is on you to support the unevolvable IC hypothesis, not me. Another logical fallacy; shifting the burden of proof. Actually, Doolittle provided a plausible scenario for the evolution of the clotting cascade, but I'm buggered if I can find it at the moment. Anyone? In summary; If you are going to make the non-evolvability of IC scientific, then you need a testable, falsifiable hypothesis. You need to present evidence that supports that hypothesis (& not just systems that fall apart if one aspect is removed, but the non-evolvable part). Non-evolvability of IC systems is not self evident. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
quote: Is this the one? http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR22.1/doolittle.html excerpt: "In fact, Behe employs a variety of creationist arguments that have been abused in the past. Of all these, the "improbability argument" is the most fallacious and most misunderstood. Thus, Behe writes about the likelihood of assembling appropriate combinations of parts of the proteins that function in a clotting scheme: "Doolittle apparently needs to shuffle and deal himself a number of perfect bridge hands to win the game. Unfortunately, the universe doesn't have time to wait." This statement follows upon some absurd arithmetic about possible combinations of shuffled units and comparisons to the Irish sweepstakes. His argument omits many relevant considerations: for example, most of the observed duplications and exon shuffling are localized to specific regions of specific chromosomes, so the number of combinations is not as large as he supposes. Its major fallacy, however, lies in the presumption that some special combination must be achieved. When we play bridge, any specified hand is just as unlikely as a perfect hand. But someone wins every time, whether or not they have a perfect hand. This point about "perfect hands" brings me to what annoyed me most in Behe's book; his use of Rube Goldberg cartoons. Ironically, I have often used Goldberg's contrived linkages as examples of how evolution works! In fact, I have used them in teaching medical students about how macromolecular cascades function. I have also used the same cartoons in debating creationists, pointing out that no Creator would have designed such a circuitous and contrived system. Instead, this is how the opportunistic hand of natural selection works, using whatever happens to be available at the moment (the resources that result from such processes as gene duplication and exon shuffling). " Looking at this board I see you hint at being a fellow Spurs supporter. Say it ain't so? PE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6475 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Actually, Doolittle provided a plausible scenario for the evolution of the clotting cascade, but I'm buggered if I can find it at the moment. Anyone?
++++++++++++++++++++++ This directly addresses Behe's arguments. http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/Clotting.html I did not go all the way through to see if it ultimately links directly to Doolittle but it is referenced. cheers,M
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Here's a link to Doolittle's full essay, A Delicate Balance. It's more of a rebuttal of Behe, but he references several articles at the bottom.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I am particularly interested in how you answer Mark's questions regarding Pc fauna. If you are honest, you will agree that you have been misled by your professional creationists.
quote: I really don't have the time. You will need an afterlife to see this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
PE, All,
Thank you for the Doolittle cites. SPUUUUURS ARE ON THEIR WAY TO WEMBLEY !(well y'know what I mean, PE ) THE BOYS ARE GONNA DOO IT AGAIN.......... After that Chas n Dave rendition, I feel the need for some molluscs soaked in vinegar. Curiously, Joz, who is now an intermittent poster here (unfortunately), was a Spurs boy too. There clearly is a statistics defying link between Tottenham Hotspur & intelligence (he says, crossing his fingers). I invite you to visit Highbury on a saturday afternoon to see the control sample . Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 11-11-2002]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024