Expelled
- Thread starter fossten
- Start date
"The Darwinist community (which is dominated by the Athiests in it) is conducting a dishonest smear campaign against ID (refusing to debate, personal attacks, blackballing professors and scientists, etc..) that is influenced by its bias."
it's not a smear campaign. when id uses true scientific methods, and not some self created scientific methods, it might stand a chance of investigation.
even the atom had to have proof of existence before it could be quantified.
id's outside intelligence just is. kinda like god just is. that is it's stumbling block. even the alien angle has the same drawback. until some snippet of evidence comes along amongst the fossils, it will stay that way. id is not being discriminated against unfairly. there is no evidence anywhere of other intelligence, especially a life creating one. if you bothered to read any of my other post, you would have come across the fish with lungs. now what intelligence would have made a fish with lungs?
but you don't like links, so i feed it to you, and you still whine. anyways, lungs are the obvious precursor to land population and a divergence to amphibians. not a sudden change to land animals, just evolution. you have stated in other threads about no half specimens. i don't think you could find one any clearer than a fish with lungs.
and fossten, editing it may have left out some important part in the chain of trasitional fossils. but then i didn't think that you would look at it anyway.
you don't have to read all of it, just perusing through parts of it can give you a good idea of the order. i didn't paste the other 2 pages.
get the boy's from discovery institute to come up with some better science and they might have a chance at their claim. and nobody have anything to say about phillip e johnson, the creator of id? the man who wanted to put a creator back in creation?
you can word id however you like, it's still another god myth.
it's not a smear campaign. when id uses true scientific methods, and not some self created scientific methods, it might stand a chance of investigation.
even the atom had to have proof of existence before it could be quantified.
id's outside intelligence just is. kinda like god just is. that is it's stumbling block. even the alien angle has the same drawback. until some snippet of evidence comes along amongst the fossils, it will stay that way. id is not being discriminated against unfairly. there is no evidence anywhere of other intelligence, especially a life creating one. if you bothered to read any of my other post, you would have come across the fish with lungs. now what intelligence would have made a fish with lungs?
but you don't like links, so i feed it to you, and you still whine. anyways, lungs are the obvious precursor to land population and a divergence to amphibians. not a sudden change to land animals, just evolution. you have stated in other threads about no half specimens. i don't think you could find one any clearer than a fish with lungs.
and fossten, editing it may have left out some important part in the chain of trasitional fossils. but then i didn't think that you would look at it anyway.
you don't have to read all of it, just perusing through parts of it can give you a good idea of the order. i didn't paste the other 2 pages.
get the boy's from discovery institute to come up with some better science and they might have a chance at their claim. and nobody have anything to say about phillip e johnson, the creator of id? the man who wanted to put a creator back in creation?
you can word id however you like, it's still another god myth.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
I read enough of the WALL O' TEXT to know that it's a bunch of crap. I suppose you didn't bother reading my link, did you? I guess not. Keep on hiding behind that bunker of denial.
- straw man argument ("self-made scientific methods")
- false analogy (an atom is nothing like a potential intellegent designer)
Moving the goalposts (no one ever said an intellegent designer ever had to be quantified, let alone even proved)
- Cherry picking (ignores the fact that the absense of God is assumed in darwinism, and never questioned, as is randomness being the driving force behind the creation of new species, and that darwinian evolution is the process by which that change occurs)
Besides, intellegence doesn't have to be proven, in fact quite the opposite. Randomness needs to be proven (usually by logically ruling out all other possibilities, including intellegent design), not just assumed (as it is in darwinism). When you find some complex ancient mechanical device (similar to finding a fossil), you don't automatically assume it has been made through random changes. You assume an intellegence behind it's design unless and until all possible intellegence can be ruled out. The exact intellegence doesn't need to be known for an intellegent design to be shown. In every other aspect (outside of evolution), intellegence is assumed unless shown otherwise. Why should that be changed for the developement of life?
Moving the goalpost (anything designed under ID now has to be perfect and can in no way be imperfect, like a fish with lungs is implied to be here)
A fish with lungs only proves...a fish with lungs. At best, it may imply certian things, but you are spinning it to imply things it doesn't.
Your two previous posts were exceedingly unneccessary. You could have read the info your self and summarized it, pulling a few quotes from the article to strengthen your argument and putting a link to it as a footnote. Instead, you chose to throw up a huge wall of text that no one has time to read, let alone go thru, point by point, and counter. I seriously doubt you even understood a good chunk of that post, yourself. You have done this before in other threads; post or link to things to make your argument without any summary, which suggests that you are either too lazy to, or can't summarize the argument. IMO, it is a bit of both. In at least one instance that I recall, you posted "proof" for your point that ultimately worked against your point. I am not gonna read any of your childish ad nauseaum post. You make the argument, don't have someone do it for you.
- correlation proves causation logical fallacy (a correlation between a number of species is, on it's own, said to prove causation, in this case through the darwinian evolutionary process)
- more straw-man mischaracterization (needing "better science")
- Red herring argument, namely ad hominem reasoning through an appeal to motive (Johnson supposedly wanting to "put a creator back in creation" is somehow "relevant" to the debate of ID vs. darwinism)
The fact is that the scientific community has no interest in looking at the science behind ID, regardless of weather that science is flawless or flawed. You know that.
In addition, the Johnson stuff is irrelevant to this issue (we are debating ID vs. darwinism, and the movie Expelled, not Johnson), and doesn't say anything about the truth value of of ID or darwinism.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Ouch, baby. Very ouch.
That was some serious pwnage.
Somebody's been boning up on his critical thinking skills.
That was some serious pwnage.
Somebody's been boning up on his critical thinking skills.
Thanks for the complement...
I'm sorry, those teeth are just awful!!
Basil: Did we get Dr. Evil?
Radar Operator: No, sir, he got away in that big spaceship that looks like a huge...
Teacher: Penis. The male reproductive organ. Also known as tallywhacker, schlong, or...
Friendly Dad: Wiener? Any of your kids want another wiener?
Friendly Son: Dad, what's that?
Friendly Dad: I don't know, son, but it has great big...
Peanut Vendor: Nuts. Hot, salty nuts. Who wants some?...
Peanut Vendor: Lord Almighty!
Woman: That looks just like my husband's...
Circus Barker: ONE-EYED MONSTER. Step right up and see the One-eyed Monster!
Cyclops: RARRR.
Cyclops: Hey, what's that? It looks like a...
Fan: Woody. Woody Harrelson. Could I have your autograph?
Woody: Sure. Oh, my Lord! Look at that thing!
Fan: It's so huge.
Woody: No, I've seen bigger. That's...
Dr. Evil: Just a little prick.
Radar Operator: No, sir, he got away in that big spaceship that looks like a huge...
Teacher: Penis. The male reproductive organ. Also known as tallywhacker, schlong, or...
Friendly Dad: Wiener? Any of your kids want another wiener?
Friendly Son: Dad, what's that?
Friendly Dad: I don't know, son, but it has great big...
Peanut Vendor: Nuts. Hot, salty nuts. Who wants some?...
Peanut Vendor: Lord Almighty!
Woman: That looks just like my husband's...
Circus Barker: ONE-EYED MONSTER. Step right up and see the One-eyed Monster!
Cyclops: RARRR.
Cyclops: Hey, what's that? It looks like a...
Fan: Woody. Woody Harrelson. Could I have your autograph?
Woody: Sure. Oh, my Lord! Look at that thing!
Fan: It's so huge.
Woody: No, I've seen bigger. That's...
Dr. Evil: Just a little prick.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Shag...
"A fish with lungs only proves...a fish with lungs. At best, it may imply certian things, but you are spinning it to imply things it doesn't."
Name some positions of ID that prove an "Intelligent Designer" without implying, spinning or any of the fallacies you love to claim hrmwrm is pulling?
"A fish with lungs only proves...a fish with lungs. At best, it may imply certian things, but you are spinning it to imply things it doesn't."
Name some positions of ID that prove an "Intelligent Designer" without implying, spinning or any of the fallacies you love to claim hrmwrm is pulling?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
You sure you want to play that "prove" game again? Evolution can't prove anything it says. All it can do is offer suggestions followed by evidence, and then let people make up their own minds.
By the way, did you ever see the movie? You said you wouldn't be back until you had.
There's a loaded question! You can't use implication to prove ID? So inference (a type of implication) is out, which means all the "evidence" for darwinian evolution is out too. Also, what do you mean by "positions" of ID? It isn't a political philosophy (or a philosophy at all, for that matter). It is a scientific theory that looks at the evidence and draws conclusions. You look at claims make, not positions taken. Your question is very unclear in what it is asking for (scientific theories have claims, not "positions").
Tell ya what i will do...
I will assume you are asking the following:
Show a claim of ID that proves an intelligent designer.
and, under that assumption, I will attempt to prove this basic claim of ID:
...there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence
When talking about any theory that tries to tell us what happened in an unseen, unobservable, unrepeatable past, you have to use inference. All the "evidence" for darwinian evolution is based on inference; "the fossil record leads to this inference", "a fish with lungs implies this", etc. The question is; is this inference logical?
The evidence cited for darwinian evolution only implies evolution if an unproven and irrational premise is assumed. You take that away, and the evidence for darwinian evolution breaks down. this assumtion is called methodological naturalism. Basically, an assumption that all phenomenon in nature have a natural (i.e. random chance) cause. It inherently rules out any other possible explanation, including design and the supernatural.
An example of how illogical this assumption is...
assume you see a painting in a cave from thousands of years ago. You didn't see it being created and and have no idea who created it. Under the assumed false premise of methodological naturalism, you could only logically infer that it was created by random chance.
Darwinism assumes natural causes and skips over the whole process of logically ruling out any other possibilities, which is neccessary for any evidence to logically infer darwinian evolution.
Still that doesn't point out what is neccessary to infer ID. The man who spelled that out pretty well was mathematician and philosopher William Dembski. Dembski wrote:
Whenever explaining an event, we must choose from three competing modes of explanation. These are regularity [necessity], chance and design...To attribute an event to design is to say it cannot be reasonably be referred to either regularity or chance. Thus, these two moves-ruling out regularity, and then ruling out chance-constitute the design inference.
So what is neccessary to rule out regularity and chance? When we see something that is exremely improbably (usually due to being extremely complex) and corresponds to an independent pattern, you get what Dembski calls "specified complexity", which leaves only design as a viable explanitory option.
A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified.
Dembski states that details of living things can be similarly characterized, including the "patterns" of molecular sequences in functional biological molecules such as DNA. If specified complexity can be found in nature, then it must also be due to an intelligent design.
So, what phenomenon in nature illustrate specified complexity? DNA, cells (and the various systems and processes cells are a part of), cilium, eyes and bacterial flagellum among many others...
In The Origin of Species Charles Darwin stated: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Michael J. Behe has a PhD in biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania, and is professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. As Behe points out, an irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.
Irreducible complexity...mean(s) a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning.
something that is irreducibly complex meets darwins own standard to disprove his theory and also shows specified complexity, which infers an intelligent designer.
Cells, cilium, eyes and bacterial flagellum are all irreducibly complex, in addition to showing specified complexity. There are many other examples...
Have you seen the film yet?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Argument from banana
Yes, yes, I know this video has been mocked by evolutionists, but it's still a pretty compelling argument.
Yes, yes, I know this video has been mocked by evolutionists, but it's still a pretty compelling argument.
Besides, intellegence doesn't have to be proven, in fact quite the opposite. Randomness needs to be proven (usually by logically ruling out all other possibilities, including intellegent design), not just assumed (as it is in darwinism). When you find some complex ancient mechanical device (similar to finding a fossil), you don't automatically assume it has been made through random changes. You assume an intellegence behind it's design unless and until all possible intellegence can be ruled out. The exact intellegence doesn't need to be known for an intellegent design to be shown. In every other aspect (outside of evolution), intellegence is assumed unless shown otherwise. Why should that be changed for the developement of life?
put 2 fords in a room together overnight and what do you get 9 months later? 2 older fords.(we'll assume the opposite sex)
put 2 any biological things together (opposite sex), wait for the gestation period required for the genus, and new life.
if there was a god, this miracle could be performed with the fords.
that's about as much sense as your arguements make. of course mechanical things are created. that's where the arguement fails. you can't compare these same things to biological entities. we've had god myth's for how many years? and not any proof of existence. i think it would have surfaced in more than just tradition texts. we've truly only had less than 100 years to look into options, and the evidence is coming up.
from fossten
"I read enough of the WALL O' TEXT to know that it's a bunch of crap"
a lot less crap than a 6000 year old earth.
maybe try this.
http://www.godisimaginary.com/
and the banana arguement is about as good as this one.
http://www.dumpalink.com/videos/Peanut_butter_proof_that_evolution_is_false-5jl2.html
and shag, behe has been shot down on his theory of irreducible complexity before. his flagellum arguement is a good example. take away any parts, and it won't work. yet another bacterium was shown to have the same structure with less parts, and it injects poison from a syringe at it's tip. irreducible complexity can't be shown as a viable arguement. it's even been thrown out of court before as a religious arguement.
put 2 fords in a room together overnight and what do you get 9 months later? 2 older fords.(we'll assume the opposite sex)
put 2 any biological things together (opposite sex), wait for the gestation period required for the genus, and new life.
if there was a god, this miracle could be performed with the fords.
that's about as much sense as your arguements make. of course mechanical things are created. that's where the arguement fails. you can't compare these same things to biological entities. we've had god myth's for how many years? and not any proof of existence. i think it would have surfaced in more than just tradition texts. we've truly only had less than 100 years to look into options, and the evidence is coming up.
from fossten
"I read enough of the WALL O' TEXT to know that it's a bunch of crap"
a lot less crap than a 6000 year old earth.
maybe try this.
http://www.godisimaginary.com/
and the banana arguement is about as good as this one.
http://www.dumpalink.com/videos/Peanut_butter_proof_that_evolution_is_false-5jl2.html
and shag, behe has been shot down on his theory of irreducible complexity before. his flagellum arguement is a good example. take away any parts, and it won't work. yet another bacterium was shown to have the same structure with less parts, and it injects poison from a syringe at it's tip. irreducible complexity can't be shown as a viable arguement. it's even been thrown out of court before as a religious arguement.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
You're getting even sloppier in your post structure, if that's possible. You don't bother encasing quotations anymore, making it difficult to understand your posts. You're lazier than I thought.
The logical fallacy to your argument of having 100 years to come up with evidence is that you admit that you're coming from a worldview of presuming there is no intelligence behind creation. You cannot throw out any evidence that there is a creator while you're looking for evidence that there is not.
On one hand you say there is no proof of God. In the same paragraph you say that you're finally coming up with some evidence that there is no God. Yet you offer none.
You're suffering from a delusion and a presupposition problem. You keep digging; it's obvious you are hoping there is no God, even before the 'proof' is uncovered. You better be right, because if you're wrong, you'll meet Him one day and have to answer to Him for your life.
The logical fallacy to your argument of having 100 years to come up with evidence is that you admit that you're coming from a worldview of presuming there is no intelligence behind creation. You cannot throw out any evidence that there is a creator while you're looking for evidence that there is not.
On one hand you say there is no proof of God. In the same paragraph you say that you're finally coming up with some evidence that there is no God. Yet you offer none.
You're suffering from a delusion and a presupposition problem. You keep digging; it's obvious you are hoping there is no God, even before the 'proof' is uncovered. You better be right, because if you're wrong, you'll meet Him one day and have to answer to Him for your life.
and as for dembski
"What is the "design inference," and why, as evolutionists and scientists, should we care about the concept? The answer to the first question: a mix of trivial probability theory and nonsensical inferences. The answer to the second one: this book is part of a large, well-planned movement whose objective, I contend, is nothing less than the destruction of modern science and its substitution with a religious system of belief. Let me briefly explain both claims.
The basic tenet of Dembski's book is that there are three possible explanations for any observed set of events: regularity, chance, and design. Regularity describes such phenomena as the rising and setting of the sun. Chance is most simply exemplified by the outcomes of tossing a fair coin. Design can be found--according to Dembski--in biological evolution, cryptography, plagiarism, and the suspicious doings of one Democratic election commissioner in New Jersey named Nicholas Caputo (more on him later). Dembski then proposes what he calls an "explanatory filter" to determine which explanation correctly accounts for any particular phenomenon. The filter works by successive exclusion: if something is not a "regular" natural phenomenon, it may be chance or design. If it is not the former, it must be the latter. This kind of reasoning is, of course, quite trivial, and it was worked out in probability theory well before the appearance of this book. As Dembski himself acknowledges, the statistician Andrei Kolmogorov had all the pieces of the puzzle in place by 1965.
But never mind that. If Dembski had simply defined "design" as what in biology is known as "necessity" (Monod 1971), his book would have reduced to another case of somebody reinventing the wheel. Instead, he goes much further, asserting that "in practice, to infer design is not simply to eliminate regularity and chance, but to detect the activity of an intelligent agent" (p. 62). This claim is what turns his opus from triviality to nonsense.
Although Dembski cloaks his logic with semi-obscure (and totally useless in practice) pseudo-mathematical jargon and symbolism, the essence of his argument is easy to understand. It is best exemplified by his own treatment of the above-mentioned New Jersey election commissioner. Nicholas Caputo, nicknamed "the man with the golden arm," was charged with electoral fraud because in 41 elections he oversaw, 40 had seen the Democrats at the top of the ballot and only one had the Republicans placed first. The probability of this occurring by chance in the random drawings that Caputo claimed to have conducted is less than one in 50 billion. Regardless of the odds, however, the New Jersey Supreme Court did not convict Caputo because, after all, even very unlikely events can occur by chance. In the absence of additional evidence, the Court simply ordered Caputo to change the way in which the drawings were conducted to avoid "further loss of public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process." (Who says that jurists have no sense of humor?)"
"An important component of Dembski's argument is what he calls "probabilistic resources." Because the design inference is established on two pillars--the occurrence of a specifiable ("detachable," in the author's jargon) pattern and a small probability of occurrence--Dembski is faced with the problem of how small such a probability actually has to be before chance can be ruled out. Instead of relying on the commonly understood limitation of statistical theory, which recognizes that any probability level is arbitrary and, therefore, that answers in science are only tentative and always subject to revision, Dembski wants more, much more. He submits that there is an absolute probability level that can be used as a universal yardstick for inferring design: 1/2 x 10-150. How did he get there? By estimating that there are 1080 particles in the universe, that no transition between physical states is possible at a rate faster than 10-45 seconds (the well-known Planck time), and that the universe is not likely to exist for a total of more than 1025 years. 1080 x 1045 x 1025 is indeed 10150. The 1/2 multiplier in front of the probability expression is to insure that our chances of reaching the correct conclusion are better than one in two (a rather arbitrary number in and of itself, of course). The basic idea here is powerful: if Dembski can demonstrate that the probability of a molecule of DNA forming in the primordial soup approaches what he calls this "universal small probability," then life did not evolve by chance.
Too bad he missed the solution to this riddle, which has been proposed several times during the last few centuries, most prominently (and in various fashions) by Hume (1779), Darwin (1859), and Jacques Monod (1971). According to these thinkers, if a given phenomenon occurs with low probability and also conforms to a pre-specified pattern, then there are two possible conclusions: intelligent design (this concept is synonymous with human intervention) or necessity, which can be caused by a nonrandom, deterministic force such as natural selection. Caputo's doing was the result of (fraudulent) human design; biological evolution is the result of random phenomena (mutation or recombination, among other processes) and deterministic phenomena (natural selection). It is disheartening to see how many people don't seem to be able to understand or accept this simple and beautiful conclusion.
More than disheartening is the background into which Dembski's book falls. In fact, I find it rather maddening. I will list a few pieces of additional information and then let the reader decide if I am justified in inferring a conspiracy behind this book. Dembski's book is endorsed on the back cover by two people from the same universities where he matriculated. The inside cover comes with a bold hail by David Berlinski, who represented the creationist side in a recent PBS debate on evolution versus creation. And Dembski's list of acknowledgments reads like a "Who's Who" of the neocreationist movement, including Michael Behe, Phillip Johnson, and Alvin Plantinga. According to the book, Dembski is "a Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture" (CRSC). A bit scarce as an academic reference, no? The reason may be that the Discovery Institute (www.discovery. org/crsc/index.html) is a conservative public policy think tank with the declared intent of promoting the intelligent design theory as "a scientific research program" that "has implications for culture, politics, and the humanities, just as materialist science has such implications." A document called "The Wedge," which has been associated with the CRSC, has recently been circulated on the Internet (humanist.net/skeptical/wedge.html). The Wedge amounts to a detailed plan for insinuating intelligent design and other creationist ideas in the public as well as the academic arenas, with the ultimate goal of overthrowing the current scientific establishment and establishing a theistic science. Dembski's book can be seen as part of one of the steps of the Wedge strategy.
Unfortunately, Cambridge University Press has offered a respectable platform for Dembski to mount his attack on "materialist science"--which, of course, includes evolution. My hope is that scientists will not dismiss this book as just another craze originating in the intellectual backwaters of America. Neocreationism should be a call to arms for the science community. The battle is already raging, and scientists and educators are still not sure if they should even bother paying attention."
there are many other scientists who have plausible reputations. i wouldn't back an arguement from him. some more of his faults
"For instance, Dembski brushes off a criticism concerning the reliability of his "explanatory filter" by noting that the objection is the problem of induction, but fails to either solve the problem of induction or retract the claim of reliability. That's philosophical humor, by the way. Dembski is not going to solve the problem of induction. That means that he should have retracted his claim of reliability. Just to be clear, let's see what Dembski means by saying that his Explanatory Filter/Design Inference/Specified Complexity criterion is reliable."
"Further, Dembski has never bothered to propose an effective empirical test methodology for his Explanatory Filter. Instead, it has been left to critics like myself to propose empirical methods of determining whether Dembski's claims of reliability have any grounding in fact. "
Dembski has, so far, not analyzed potential counterexamples. I proposed at Haverford College last June that Dembski "do the calculation" for the Krebs citric acid cycle and the impedance-matching apparatus of the mammalian middle ear. Dembski has not done so.
In other places, Dembski fails to take up the arguments of critics, as in Dembski's mischaracterization of a program written by Richard Dawkins. Two out of three of the steps that Dembski says characterize the program are, in fact, Dembski's own invention, appearing nowhere in Dawkins's work. The sad thing is that criticism of precisely this point was made by me in email to Dembski back in October of 2000. It would have been easy for Dembski to fix, but it did not happen.
The most disappointing aspect of "No Free Lunch", though, has to do with section 5.10, "Doing The Calculation". Dembski had promised, under critical questioning, to publish an example of the application of his framework for inferring design from "The Design Inference" as it would be applied to a non-trivial example of a biological system. Section 5.10 is apparently what Dembski intended to serve as payment on that promissory note. However, it fails to deliver on several points. Dembski does not establish that the example, that of a bacterial flagellum, has a specification according to the usage in "The Design Inference". Dembski also fails to enumerate and then eliminate multiple relevant chance hypotheses, as indicated in "The Design Inference". Dembski especially does not evaluate the hypothesis that the bacterial flagellum developed through evolutionary change; a curious omission given the context. The single "chance" hypothesis that Dembski does bother to consider is a marginal refinement on the old antievolution standby, "random assembly". At least, the technical jargon looks denser around Dembski's argument than I've seen around "tornado in a junkyard" presentations. But all in all, section 5.10 does little to help those who wanted to see how a design inference could be rigorously applied to biological examples. "
"My vote for the next most profound problem in Dembski's "No Free Lunch" is that while the subtitle says, "Why specified complexity cannot be purchased without intelligence", Dembski seems not to offer any coherent account of how specified complexity *can* be purchased *with* intelligence. Dembski seems to treat this as a "brute given". Dembski argues that algorithms and natural law cannot "generate" specified complexity. By implication, any logical calculus that could underwrite rationality in humans or "unembodied designers" is also incapable of "generation" of specified complexity in an intelligent agent. This leaves us with only irrational processes in intelligent agents as possible means of "purchasing" specified complexity, if we accept Dembski's arguments and assertions. "
i think the things clarified here are what is needed for science to take claims seriously. finsh your thesis, and stop using it to back up fallacious claims.
then there's an experiment run that proves him wrong again.
http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/noselection/
and finally
"We have interpreted the Filter as sometimes recommending that you should accept
Regularity or Chance. This is supported, for example, by Dembski’s remark (38) that “if E
happens to be an HP [a high probability] event, we stop and attribute E to a regularity.”
However, some of the circumlocutions that Dembski uses suggest that he doesn't think you
should ever “accept” Regularity or Chance.2 The most you should do is “not reject” them.
Under this alternative interpretation, Dembski is saying that if you fail to reject Regularity, you
can believe any of the three hypotheses, or remain agnostic about all three. And if you reject
Regularity, but fail to reject Chance, you can believe either Chance or Design, or remain agnostic
about them both. Only if you have rejected Regularity and Chance must you accept one of the
three, namely Design. Construed in this way, a person who believes that every event is the result
of Design has nothing to fear from the Explanatory Filter -- no evidence can ever dislodge that
opinion."
sounds pretty arbitrary on choices. this is where he becomes fallible and unconvincing in his arguement.
"What is the "design inference," and why, as evolutionists and scientists, should we care about the concept? The answer to the first question: a mix of trivial probability theory and nonsensical inferences. The answer to the second one: this book is part of a large, well-planned movement whose objective, I contend, is nothing less than the destruction of modern science and its substitution with a religious system of belief. Let me briefly explain both claims.
The basic tenet of Dembski's book is that there are three possible explanations for any observed set of events: regularity, chance, and design. Regularity describes such phenomena as the rising and setting of the sun. Chance is most simply exemplified by the outcomes of tossing a fair coin. Design can be found--according to Dembski--in biological evolution, cryptography, plagiarism, and the suspicious doings of one Democratic election commissioner in New Jersey named Nicholas Caputo (more on him later). Dembski then proposes what he calls an "explanatory filter" to determine which explanation correctly accounts for any particular phenomenon. The filter works by successive exclusion: if something is not a "regular" natural phenomenon, it may be chance or design. If it is not the former, it must be the latter. This kind of reasoning is, of course, quite trivial, and it was worked out in probability theory well before the appearance of this book. As Dembski himself acknowledges, the statistician Andrei Kolmogorov had all the pieces of the puzzle in place by 1965.
But never mind that. If Dembski had simply defined "design" as what in biology is known as "necessity" (Monod 1971), his book would have reduced to another case of somebody reinventing the wheel. Instead, he goes much further, asserting that "in practice, to infer design is not simply to eliminate regularity and chance, but to detect the activity of an intelligent agent" (p. 62). This claim is what turns his opus from triviality to nonsense.
Although Dembski cloaks his logic with semi-obscure (and totally useless in practice) pseudo-mathematical jargon and symbolism, the essence of his argument is easy to understand. It is best exemplified by his own treatment of the above-mentioned New Jersey election commissioner. Nicholas Caputo, nicknamed "the man with the golden arm," was charged with electoral fraud because in 41 elections he oversaw, 40 had seen the Democrats at the top of the ballot and only one had the Republicans placed first. The probability of this occurring by chance in the random drawings that Caputo claimed to have conducted is less than one in 50 billion. Regardless of the odds, however, the New Jersey Supreme Court did not convict Caputo because, after all, even very unlikely events can occur by chance. In the absence of additional evidence, the Court simply ordered Caputo to change the way in which the drawings were conducted to avoid "further loss of public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process." (Who says that jurists have no sense of humor?)"
"An important component of Dembski's argument is what he calls "probabilistic resources." Because the design inference is established on two pillars--the occurrence of a specifiable ("detachable," in the author's jargon) pattern and a small probability of occurrence--Dembski is faced with the problem of how small such a probability actually has to be before chance can be ruled out. Instead of relying on the commonly understood limitation of statistical theory, which recognizes that any probability level is arbitrary and, therefore, that answers in science are only tentative and always subject to revision, Dembski wants more, much more. He submits that there is an absolute probability level that can be used as a universal yardstick for inferring design: 1/2 x 10-150. How did he get there? By estimating that there are 1080 particles in the universe, that no transition between physical states is possible at a rate faster than 10-45 seconds (the well-known Planck time), and that the universe is not likely to exist for a total of more than 1025 years. 1080 x 1045 x 1025 is indeed 10150. The 1/2 multiplier in front of the probability expression is to insure that our chances of reaching the correct conclusion are better than one in two (a rather arbitrary number in and of itself, of course). The basic idea here is powerful: if Dembski can demonstrate that the probability of a molecule of DNA forming in the primordial soup approaches what he calls this "universal small probability," then life did not evolve by chance.
Too bad he missed the solution to this riddle, which has been proposed several times during the last few centuries, most prominently (and in various fashions) by Hume (1779), Darwin (1859), and Jacques Monod (1971). According to these thinkers, if a given phenomenon occurs with low probability and also conforms to a pre-specified pattern, then there are two possible conclusions: intelligent design (this concept is synonymous with human intervention) or necessity, which can be caused by a nonrandom, deterministic force such as natural selection. Caputo's doing was the result of (fraudulent) human design; biological evolution is the result of random phenomena (mutation or recombination, among other processes) and deterministic phenomena (natural selection). It is disheartening to see how many people don't seem to be able to understand or accept this simple and beautiful conclusion.
More than disheartening is the background into which Dembski's book falls. In fact, I find it rather maddening. I will list a few pieces of additional information and then let the reader decide if I am justified in inferring a conspiracy behind this book. Dembski's book is endorsed on the back cover by two people from the same universities where he matriculated. The inside cover comes with a bold hail by David Berlinski, who represented the creationist side in a recent PBS debate on evolution versus creation. And Dembski's list of acknowledgments reads like a "Who's Who" of the neocreationist movement, including Michael Behe, Phillip Johnson, and Alvin Plantinga. According to the book, Dembski is "a Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture" (CRSC). A bit scarce as an academic reference, no? The reason may be that the Discovery Institute (www.discovery. org/crsc/index.html) is a conservative public policy think tank with the declared intent of promoting the intelligent design theory as "a scientific research program" that "has implications for culture, politics, and the humanities, just as materialist science has such implications." A document called "The Wedge," which has been associated with the CRSC, has recently been circulated on the Internet (humanist.net/skeptical/wedge.html). The Wedge amounts to a detailed plan for insinuating intelligent design and other creationist ideas in the public as well as the academic arenas, with the ultimate goal of overthrowing the current scientific establishment and establishing a theistic science. Dembski's book can be seen as part of one of the steps of the Wedge strategy.
Unfortunately, Cambridge University Press has offered a respectable platform for Dembski to mount his attack on "materialist science"--which, of course, includes evolution. My hope is that scientists will not dismiss this book as just another craze originating in the intellectual backwaters of America. Neocreationism should be a call to arms for the science community. The battle is already raging, and scientists and educators are still not sure if they should even bother paying attention."
there are many other scientists who have plausible reputations. i wouldn't back an arguement from him. some more of his faults
"For instance, Dembski brushes off a criticism concerning the reliability of his "explanatory filter" by noting that the objection is the problem of induction, but fails to either solve the problem of induction or retract the claim of reliability. That's philosophical humor, by the way. Dembski is not going to solve the problem of induction. That means that he should have retracted his claim of reliability. Just to be clear, let's see what Dembski means by saying that his Explanatory Filter/Design Inference/Specified Complexity criterion is reliable."
"Further, Dembski has never bothered to propose an effective empirical test methodology for his Explanatory Filter. Instead, it has been left to critics like myself to propose empirical methods of determining whether Dembski's claims of reliability have any grounding in fact. "
Dembski has, so far, not analyzed potential counterexamples. I proposed at Haverford College last June that Dembski "do the calculation" for the Krebs citric acid cycle and the impedance-matching apparatus of the mammalian middle ear. Dembski has not done so.
In other places, Dembski fails to take up the arguments of critics, as in Dembski's mischaracterization of a program written by Richard Dawkins. Two out of three of the steps that Dembski says characterize the program are, in fact, Dembski's own invention, appearing nowhere in Dawkins's work. The sad thing is that criticism of precisely this point was made by me in email to Dembski back in October of 2000. It would have been easy for Dembski to fix, but it did not happen.
The most disappointing aspect of "No Free Lunch", though, has to do with section 5.10, "Doing The Calculation". Dembski had promised, under critical questioning, to publish an example of the application of his framework for inferring design from "The Design Inference" as it would be applied to a non-trivial example of a biological system. Section 5.10 is apparently what Dembski intended to serve as payment on that promissory note. However, it fails to deliver on several points. Dembski does not establish that the example, that of a bacterial flagellum, has a specification according to the usage in "The Design Inference". Dembski also fails to enumerate and then eliminate multiple relevant chance hypotheses, as indicated in "The Design Inference". Dembski especially does not evaluate the hypothesis that the bacterial flagellum developed through evolutionary change; a curious omission given the context. The single "chance" hypothesis that Dembski does bother to consider is a marginal refinement on the old antievolution standby, "random assembly". At least, the technical jargon looks denser around Dembski's argument than I've seen around "tornado in a junkyard" presentations. But all in all, section 5.10 does little to help those who wanted to see how a design inference could be rigorously applied to biological examples. "
"My vote for the next most profound problem in Dembski's "No Free Lunch" is that while the subtitle says, "Why specified complexity cannot be purchased without intelligence", Dembski seems not to offer any coherent account of how specified complexity *can* be purchased *with* intelligence. Dembski seems to treat this as a "brute given". Dembski argues that algorithms and natural law cannot "generate" specified complexity. By implication, any logical calculus that could underwrite rationality in humans or "unembodied designers" is also incapable of "generation" of specified complexity in an intelligent agent. This leaves us with only irrational processes in intelligent agents as possible means of "purchasing" specified complexity, if we accept Dembski's arguments and assertions. "
i think the things clarified here are what is needed for science to take claims seriously. finsh your thesis, and stop using it to back up fallacious claims.
then there's an experiment run that proves him wrong again.
http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/noselection/
and finally
"We have interpreted the Filter as sometimes recommending that you should accept
Regularity or Chance. This is supported, for example, by Dembski’s remark (38) that “if E
happens to be an HP [a high probability] event, we stop and attribute E to a regularity.”
However, some of the circumlocutions that Dembski uses suggest that he doesn't think you
should ever “accept” Regularity or Chance.2 The most you should do is “not reject” them.
Under this alternative interpretation, Dembski is saying that if you fail to reject Regularity, you
can believe any of the three hypotheses, or remain agnostic about all three. And if you reject
Regularity, but fail to reject Chance, you can believe either Chance or Design, or remain agnostic
about them both. Only if you have rejected Regularity and Chance must you accept one of the
three, namely Design. Construed in this way, a person who believes that every event is the result
of Design has nothing to fear from the Explanatory Filter -- no evidence can ever dislodge that
opinion."
sounds pretty arbitrary on choices. this is where he becomes fallible and unconvincing in his arguement.
i don't say that evidence is coming up with no god. i'm talking of EVOLUTION. there never has been evidence of god. there is no evidence of a creator, god, isis, ishtar,thor, or anything you wish to call the myth. i'm not hoping there is no god, that's already a given. that is your problem. you keep thinking i'm trying to disprove god. i'm trying to prove evolution.
More bile, from the irrational one! This should be fun.
Interesting that you cite a car, which is another example of specified complexity. According to darwinism, you would have to assume that the car was created by random chance, and not intellegently designed.
Another red herring argument (to set up a straw man)' that has nothing to do with what is being discussed and is thus, irrelevent. You can prove procreation. That doesn't say anything about ID or darwinian evolution.
So, because you can't show a miracle in your hypothetical, ID is disproven?!
Talk about huge logical leaps that are irrelevent and go no where. another red herring argument...
I can make an irrelevent point an claim it disproves your thesis; "I ate pizza last night". There, your thesis is now disproven.
What?! where are you getting that? Your "example" makes no sense and is in no way similar to my argument. Can you say false analogy? And a sloppy attempt at that.
Example? And relevance?
Ah, so we must have a different standard for judging biological creations then for any other creation? Double standard? More moving the goalposts it seems...
Misdirection. You are the only one making this about God (or a "God" myth). That is only relevant, in any way, to ID in a discussion of motives. IDer's motives and bias don't discredit their point of view (as I have spelled out earlier in this thread). This is an ad homenim attack through appeal to motive.
You are also ignoring the point I made about bias in this thread and continuing your attack using the whole "God myth" thing as if it is somehow relevant. An example of proof by assertion.
Its been much more the a hundred years...
Anyway, you are looking at things from the wrong direction. Here is the assertion, now lets find the evidence. Science shouldn't work that way. You go where the info leads, not the other way around (which is what darwinism does)
Hardly. You are just latching on to any attack of behe and unquestionable buying it, more likely.
How likely is it that in whatever you have read that "shoots down" behe's argument, or whatever argument you would make, methodological naturalism is assumed?
Unless and until you can make an argument that doesn't assume that (which all your arguments have assumed), your whole argument is invalid because it is based on an unproven (and therefore false) premise.
This has been pointed out a few times in this thead too, and you simply ignore it. Which indicates that most of your arguments have an element of proof by assertion.
...which proves his point.
Which is tangental at best...
I assume you are talking about the whole Miller, TTSS thing. Here, I will lay out his argument for you.
Behe already acknowledges this in his book. Just because an irreducibly complex systems has certian parts that can perform other functions doesn't disprove Behe's point, in fact, it confirms it. Behe wrote that Miller was...
Lets use your car analogy...
Basically, removing the engine from a car and putting it in a boat (where it works fine) doesn't change the fact that the motorless car doesn't work.
Miller intentionally ignores that fact; instead focusing on the fact that the motor works for a different purpose now; driving a boat. That fact is irrelevant to irreducible complexity.
Interesting that you cite a car, which is another example of specified complexity. According to darwinism, you would have to assume that the car was created by random chance, and not intellegently designed.
Another red herring argument (to set up a straw man)' that has nothing to do with what is being discussed and is thus, irrelevent. You can prove procreation. That doesn't say anything about ID or darwinian evolution.
So, because you can't show a miracle in your hypothetical, ID is disproven?!
Talk about huge logical leaps that are irrelevent and go no where. another red herring argument...
I can make an irrelevent point an claim it disproves your thesis; "I ate pizza last night". There, your thesis is now disproven.
What?! where are you getting that? Your "example" makes no sense and is in no way similar to my argument. Can you say false analogy? And a sloppy attempt at that.
Example? And relevance?
Ah, so we must have a different standard for judging biological creations then for any other creation? Double standard? More moving the goalposts it seems...
Misdirection. You are the only one making this about God (or a "God" myth). That is only relevant, in any way, to ID in a discussion of motives. IDer's motives and bias don't discredit their point of view (as I have spelled out earlier in this thread). This is an ad homenim attack through appeal to motive.
You are also ignoring the point I made about bias in this thread and continuing your attack using the whole "God myth" thing as if it is somehow relevant. An example of proof by assertion.
Its been much more the a hundred years...
Anyway, you are looking at things from the wrong direction. Here is the assertion, now lets find the evidence. Science shouldn't work that way. You go where the info leads, not the other way around (which is what darwinism does)
Hardly. You are just latching on to any attack of behe and unquestionable buying it, more likely.
How likely is it that in whatever you have read that "shoots down" behe's argument, or whatever argument you would make, methodological naturalism is assumed?
Unless and until you can make an argument that doesn't assume that (which all your arguments have assumed), your whole argument is invalid because it is based on an unproven (and therefore false) premise.
This has been pointed out a few times in this thead too, and you simply ignore it. Which indicates that most of your arguments have an element of proof by assertion.
...which proves his point.
Which is tangental at best...
I assume you are talking about the whole Miller, TTSS thing. Here, I will lay out his argument for you.
Kenneth Miller, a well-known evolutionary biologist from Brown University, points out that certain subsystems of the bacterial flagellum would still be in working order if other parts were removed. The overall flagellar motility system requires around 50 different types of proteins (and underlying genes to code for them). However, it is quite interesting to note that 10 of these genes and the resulting structure within the flagellar motility system also code for what is known as a type III secretory system (TTSS). The TTSS is used as a toxin injector by some especially nasty bacteria that attack both animals and plants. Therefore, Kenneth Miller argues that it is mistaken to use the flagellar system as an example of a truly irreducibly complex machine since around 40 different parts could be removed from the machine without a complete loss of function. Miller also points out that the majority of the protein parts of the flagellar system have other functions as parts of other systems within bacteria.
Basically, Miller is arguing that, because the TTSS resembles part of the flagellum but has a different biological function, the flagellum is not irreducibly complex. "What this means is that the argument for intelligent design of the flagellum has failed".Behe already acknowledges this in his book. Just because an irreducibly complex systems has certian parts that can perform other functions doesn't disprove Behe's point, in fact, it confirms it. Behe wrote that Miller was...
...switching the focus from the funtion of the system to act as a rotary propulsion machine to the ability of a subset of the system to transport proteins actross a membrane. However, taking away the parts of the flagellum certainly destrys the ability of the system to act as a rotary propulsion machine, as I have argued. Thus, contra Miller, the flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex
Lets use your car analogy...
Basically, removing the engine from a car and putting it in a boat (where it works fine) doesn't change the fact that the motorless car doesn't work.
Miller intentionally ignores that fact; instead focusing on the fact that the motor works for a different purpose now; driving a boat. That fact is irrelevant to irreducible complexity.
Your argument is not centered around proving darwinian evolution; it is centered around discrediting (not disproving) ID.
To prove evoution (and thus disprove ID) is rather simple, as there are ultimately only two differences between the two from which all the other arguments come...
ID rejects methodological naturalism, which darwinism assumes without justification.
ID rejects darwinian evolution (as I have defined numerous times in this thread alone)
Since all the evidence for darwinian evolution is dependant on the assumed methodological naturalism, that is ultimately what you really need to prove. Interesting that you haven't even attempted to prove that...
You are making this argument about God. ID is not dependant on a God, yet you are attempting to attach God to ID as if that somehow disproves ID, which it wouldn't. You are assuming that if ID is dependant on God, it is disproven.
Basically, because God can't be proven and ID is dependant on God, ID is discredited as a scientific theory. That same angle of attack discredits darwinism, because it is dependant on the assumption of methodological naturalism, which can't be proven.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Good luck with that. Sorry, you can't. EVERY SINGLE evolutionary premise begins with, "Assume a [fill in the blank]..." Even your best guess still fails to explain where [fill in the blank] came from. I'll give you a hint: I already know the answer, and I don't have to prove it to you. Sure glad I'm not you - wondering what the truth is. One less thing in my life to worry about.
Hrmwrm...
Post number 88 (the Dembski one) is another exceedingly lazy post on your part.
You reposted this article in its entirety:
http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_pigliuccireview.htm
And then, You reposted a few excerpts from this article:
http://www.antievolution.org/people/dembski_wa/rev_nfl_wre_capsule.html
what you wrote in the post was...
*Out of the 2040 words in your post (not including the link you pasted), you only wrote 81!
*Of that whole post, only 3.9% was written by you!
*Your whole argument is simply quotes you cut and paste!!
You are still having someone else make your argument for you, only now you are adding a few comments in the margins. The reverse should be the case: you make the argument and use the sources to support your argument. Instead, you are relying on a type of ad nauseaum argument, specifically proof by assertion mixed with appeal to authority.
You throw that wall of text up there (that you didn't write) that for all practical purposes can't be refuted due to it's length and highly technical nature. When it isn't refuted (as it can't be by anyone in a reasonable amount of time, especially without the technical background neccessary to easily understand those posts) you assume your point stands, because it is unchallenged.
It is exceedingly insulting when I take a large amount time to articulate a position and refute your claims, only to have you essentially ignore that argument with a post like the one you made, that doesn't really attack my specific argument, but touches on the main point, or one of the points through pasting in someone elses work. You don't even attempt to counter my post yourself, instead using someone else's work to counter what you think my main points are. Interestingly, in that proccess, you miss a lot of what I say...
Even when called on your underhanded tactics, you continue to use them, suggesting that, A: you are not just intellectually lazy, but also don't fully understand what you are posting, and B: you don't have any intellectual integrety (at least on this subject). Your own actions shoot your credibility in the foot.
With the technical detail some of the articles you posts go into, I have no doubt that you are posting well beyond your knowledge. I could also post really technically detailed articles that refute your points, but I wanna make sure that I understand the argument, you understand the argument, and anyone else who reads the post understands the argument. If your audience can't understand your argument, then your argument is worthless.
I go out of my way to spell out my argument and make it easy to understand; you find atricles to post that are above the knowledge of anyone here (including yourself), let alone refute. That dishonestly insulates you from having your point countered, but doesn't convince anyone of your point, either.
It is obvious that you are not interested in an honest debate here, your sole concern is being proven right and/or proving anyone opposed to your position wrong. Any means to accomplish that end seem to be justified, as you have show in this thread a huge lack of intellectual integrety on this subject. You have consistently used fallacious arguments, ignored points that you can't counter, and posted other peoples arguments (as proxi for your own) that are well beyond the technically knowledge of anyone on this board (including yourself) in an underhanded, and fallacious attempt to make a point, or disprove one.
You are not contributing anything to this debate/discussion, you only take away from it.
Unless you are going to make the argument (not post someone else's argument), I ask that you stop posting in this thread.
Post number 88 (the Dembski one) is another exceedingly lazy post on your part.
You reposted this article in its entirety:
http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_pigliuccireview.htm
And then, You reposted a few excerpts from this article:
http://www.antievolution.org/people/dembski_wa/rev_nfl_wre_capsule.html
what you wrote in the post was...
*Out of the 2040 words in your post (not including the link you pasted), you only wrote 81!
*Of that whole post, only 3.9% was written by you!
*Your whole argument is simply quotes you cut and paste!!
You are still having someone else make your argument for you, only now you are adding a few comments in the margins. The reverse should be the case: you make the argument and use the sources to support your argument. Instead, you are relying on a type of ad nauseaum argument, specifically proof by assertion mixed with appeal to authority.
You throw that wall of text up there (that you didn't write) that for all practical purposes can't be refuted due to it's length and highly technical nature. When it isn't refuted (as it can't be by anyone in a reasonable amount of time, especially without the technical background neccessary to easily understand those posts) you assume your point stands, because it is unchallenged.
It is exceedingly insulting when I take a large amount time to articulate a position and refute your claims, only to have you essentially ignore that argument with a post like the one you made, that doesn't really attack my specific argument, but touches on the main point, or one of the points through pasting in someone elses work. You don't even attempt to counter my post yourself, instead using someone else's work to counter what you think my main points are. Interestingly, in that proccess, you miss a lot of what I say...
Even when called on your underhanded tactics, you continue to use them, suggesting that, A: you are not just intellectually lazy, but also don't fully understand what you are posting, and B: you don't have any intellectual integrety (at least on this subject). Your own actions shoot your credibility in the foot.
With the technical detail some of the articles you posts go into, I have no doubt that you are posting well beyond your knowledge. I could also post really technically detailed articles that refute your points, but I wanna make sure that I understand the argument, you understand the argument, and anyone else who reads the post understands the argument. If your audience can't understand your argument, then your argument is worthless.
I go out of my way to spell out my argument and make it easy to understand; you find atricles to post that are above the knowledge of anyone here (including yourself), let alone refute. That dishonestly insulates you from having your point countered, but doesn't convince anyone of your point, either.
It is obvious that you are not interested in an honest debate here, your sole concern is being proven right and/or proving anyone opposed to your position wrong. Any means to accomplish that end seem to be justified, as you have show in this thread a huge lack of intellectual integrety on this subject. You have consistently used fallacious arguments, ignored points that you can't counter, and posted other peoples arguments (as proxi for your own) that are well beyond the technically knowledge of anyone on this board (including yourself) in an underhanded, and fallacious attempt to make a point, or disprove one.
You are not contributing anything to this debate/discussion, you only take away from it.
Unless you are going to make the argument (not post someone else's argument), I ask that you stop posting in this thread.
why would i have to assume the car is random chance? these are the facts of retorts that make you look imbecilic. because of evolution of biological things, you're now going to carry that to all material things? that's some thought process you have. as for bile from me, i see you resort to personal insults when the arguement turns to disadvantage.
""I ate pizza last night". There, your thesis is now disproven."
disproves what? yet another of your weird compilations of words that explain nothing. you have yet to render an answer towards my question of phillip johnson and his intention.
you stated earlier that to find something ancient and mechanical, you would have to conclude that it was intelligently designed, and that's a given. but to coorelate that to biology is false. in all your arguements, you confuse the two. one does not make for the other.
and asking for an example and relevance mechanical creation? are you that incapable? your arguements would leave me stumped believing that.
and as far as behe, he may see it that way, but the fact that it can be shown that parts missing don't make the appendage useless, as was his claim, just shows that these complex systems do arise within evolution, and don't need special design behind them.
""I ate pizza last night". There, your thesis is now disproven."
disproves what? yet another of your weird compilations of words that explain nothing. you have yet to render an answer towards my question of phillip johnson and his intention.
you stated earlier that to find something ancient and mechanical, you would have to conclude that it was intelligently designed, and that's a given. but to coorelate that to biology is false. in all your arguements, you confuse the two. one does not make for the other.
and asking for an example and relevance mechanical creation? are you that incapable? your arguements would leave me stumped believing that.
and as far as behe, he may see it that way, but the fact that it can be shown that parts missing don't make the appendage useless, as was his claim, just shows that these complex systems do arise within evolution, and don't need special design behind them.
whether i type it out, or have it found, is irrelevant. that is nothing but a cheap shot at me. the point is that the so-called scientists behind id are trying to re-write science for their own personal agenda, and their theories are not bound in science, and they are not complete.
and making suppositions about my intellectual level is nothing more than a personal attack once again.
i put up these examples to show, that in the intellectual world of science, these people refuse to admit the truths of their so-called science. although he has failed to prove his agenda, behe is one of the few with integrity in his testing.
dembski just throws out an equation that he says proves his theory, without doing the legwork to prove his claim.(which as shown, is impossible) id is nothing more than a pr campaign to put theistic science in place. if that is the kind of science you wish, turn the clock back a few hundred years or go to a theistically ruled country. i'm sure iran would accept the theory willingly.
while id does have some good arguements, it is at it's most fundamental, just bad scientifically, which is the direction it is trying to appeal to.
and fossten, i don't wonder what truth is. and one day, you may find it.
and making suppositions about my intellectual level is nothing more than a personal attack once again.
i put up these examples to show, that in the intellectual world of science, these people refuse to admit the truths of their so-called science. although he has failed to prove his agenda, behe is one of the few with integrity in his testing.
dembski just throws out an equation that he says proves his theory, without doing the legwork to prove his claim.(which as shown, is impossible) id is nothing more than a pr campaign to put theistic science in place. if that is the kind of science you wish, turn the clock back a few hundred years or go to a theistically ruled country. i'm sure iran would accept the theory willingly.
while id does have some good arguements, it is at it's most fundamental, just bad scientifically, which is the direction it is trying to appeal to.
and fossten, i don't wonder what truth is. and one day, you may find it.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
And evidence can't lead to proof?
No, I'm still downloading it. I said I would leave the Ad Nazism at the door until I saw it, not that I'd leave. I did see Stein on Glenn Beck discussing "Expelled"... Stein should really stick to economics or speach writting. Underhanded tactics and all, dude has ZERO objectivity. They parsed one of the Evo scientist, where he was explaining his own personal belief of letting go of God and the "fear" of "what if there is no life after dearth", like it was some horrible atrocity to think that. Last time I checked, people don't need the fear of God to be decent. If the only reason someone isn't killing, raping, stealing etc. is because the have God-fear, then that is sad.
Shag, that was a complete cop-out, if you were truly objective, you'd measure and scrutinize ID with the same rules you levy at Evolution Theory. But alas, there's always a different set of rules; isn't that one of your "fallacies" you always point out.
So are you suggesting that there is an absolute set of morals? Or is "decency" fluid over time?
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Possible I guess, not sure though, as dealing in absolutes can be flawed. Not sure what you mean there.
Do you think someone can't be decent person unless they believe in God and have some fear of judgment after death?
I'm just trying to get a baseline here. I think decency can be very subjective and varies from person to person, and that variance can be dangerous at times. You don't hear Darwinian evolutionists espousing "decency" very often. They tend to shy away from it due to moral implications. It's counter to the whole "natural selection/only the strong survive" thing.