RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (16) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: For the love of Avocationist, A whole thread for some ID evidence< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,04:54   

Dear All,

Many people, myself included, have delicately requested our reemergent contributor Avocationist to please discuss his/her ID ideas etc in a thread seperate from the LUCA/UD/etc threads.

To that noble end, I humbly invite Avocationist to educate we humble few in this dedicated thread.

Avocationist I thank you for your contributions in advance. Some cut and pasted remarks are included below. We can discuss the postive evidence that Avocationist has for ID, or the banning of Dave Springer, or indeed the religious foundations of ID (or not), or even fundamentalism at ATBC as we wish. Avocationist the flaw* floor is yours

Louis

*ADDED IN EDIT: Oops, Freud, you naughty boy!

All quotes from Avocationist.

Quote
So on that note, I'm curious as to why Dave Scot got banned from here?


Quote
Who is supposed to have written the Wedge, and for whom?

I really can't know that the author meant by traditional doctrines of creation. That God created the world I think all Christians should believe. But that it might have been a long and natural process they can also believe. But not naturalistic in the sense often meant here, as in no intentional input. My guess is that they want the churches to stop wimping out and assess the situation a little better. It appears that a lot of nonfundie churches go along with Darwinist teachings without looking too hard. In school, kids are taught that there is no purpose to evolution. That really isn't compatible with theism. Even Miller believes the universe was designed by God, he just thinks that complex system could evolve by unguided processes. So in that sense, there is a divide between his understanding of evolution, and Dawkins'.


Quote
You know, Lenny, I understand that this thread is generally lighthearted and dedicated for the abuse of of UD, so it's true that this ought to be moved, but you are proving yourself to be a bear of very little brain, and one dedicated to gratuitous belligerance as well.  
Obviously, to you, any religious person is a fundamentalist. Whereas, I fear fundamentalists, and I got news for you - you are one.


Quote
I believe you mistook my meaning. So I'll clear it up. I meant that I agreed there is a strong streak of fundamentalism at UD, but I also see it here


Quote
In my opinion, nothing. In my opinion, God is everything, so there is no process or for that matter, material, separate from God. But generally, people have the idea that matter is something separate from God. So God set up a system, and it's running along on its own, or mostly on its own. Like you might wind up a top and let it go on the floor. But the evolution of life just doesn't look like something that could happen on its own. On the other hand, getting to the point where you have matter, a universe, organization into galaxies and planets, and various laws of nature such that there is a planet with weather, also does not look too probable. Your question is about like asking whether a mouse can scratch his ear without the assist of God.


Quote
I mean, your questions are just absolutely trite. Why bother to eat? Why not just pray for sustenance? And of course there are emotional/spiritual components to disease causation


Quote
Aren't you ashamed to provide this level of discourse?

You've made a lot of ass-umptions. I'm barely tolerated at UD. Is your position really so weak that you have to paint everyone with the same brush? Some ID people are fundies, some are religious but nonfundies, and some are not categorizable.

Your refutation of the Wedge document disclaimer was filled with fear and paranoia. Some of the things they said and do say  I agree with. There is no humanity without a metaphysical worldview. Right now, the atheists have got the floor. I agree with the DI that the purposeless worldview being taught is depressing and disheartening to humanity. I also don't think it's true. I don't know whether it might backfire if the Christians got their way, but I don't see why it should. Our country was freer in the last century than it is now and Christianity was not particularly oppressive. What I see coming, a totalitarian regime, will be by the corporate elite, not the fundies, although they will use the fundies.
There are a lot of fundie elements in our society, and they absolutely should be kept in check. There are Christians who want to implement Old Testament Biblical law. But I really, really don't see that as happening.
When I see all the fear and loathing in your arguments, it makes me skeptical that you can evaluate for truth. Fear is a decreaser of consciousness and reason.


And so on and so forth.

--------------
Bye.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,05:05   

Quote
In my opinion, nothing. In my opinion, God is everything, so there is no process or for that matter, material, separate from God.
I know lots of people who believe this, in fact a Christian friend told me once that God makes the flowers grow. If this is true, we still cannot say scientifically that intelligence is needed to make the flowers grow.
Quote
Alright, I worded it sloppily. The common phrase and what young people are taught, is random, unguided, purposeless. I think you knew that, right?
My point was that just because the major evolutionary processes appear unguided to scientific investigations does not mean that God wasn't involved. Im no theologian but I can think of many ways God could act without us being able to detect it scientifically. You can use evolution to support atheism if you like, the same way people use the big bang and the cosmological constant to support the existence of God, but the idea that a evolution as a scientific theory disproves God by it's very nature is a misunderstanding of the nature of science.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,07:23   

I just want to know if Avocationists thinks supernatural witches exist, and if so, should they be killed.

I also want to know if she thinks demons and devils possess people, and if she agrees with Hovind and Ross that flying saucers come from the Devil.

I want to see just how nutty Avocationist really is . . . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Cedric Katesby



Posts: 55
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,08:04   

Scientific argument for ID please.
(waits patiently) :)

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,08:46   

Cedric,

Patience is a virtue......but don't hold your breath!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,09:02   

Somewhere along the line I'd also like to hear how Judge Jones was made to 'look foolish'.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,09:18   

Avocationist is back!?

We get rid of the wacky funhouse world of afdave, only to re-acquire the pretzel-logic of avocationist?

There must be some kind of "conservation of loopiness" law operating here.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,09:30   

I really haven't been around that long, so I wasn't really aware of who "avocationist" was...now that I did a li'l searching...uh, yeah, you're right, Russ.
*sharpens his poking stick*

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,09:38   

Shhhhhhh behave. It'll think we're fundamentalists. Oh wait. It already does.

{Breaks cover, sits down in rocking chair, picks up poking stick and whittlin' knife, starts whittlin'}

Corn's high this yeeeah.

{spits baccy}

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,10:01   

Quote
Corn's high this yeeeah.

*Spits* Yup. Mighty high.  *polishes his shotgun*

Wheer's thet flat-headed banjo-playin' boy of your'n got to? We needs us some fancy musick.


--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,13:01   

Hi Chris,

Quote
If this is true, we still cannot say scientifically that intelligence is needed to make the flowers grow...My point was that just because the major evolutionary processes appear unguided to scientific investigations does not mean that God wasn't involved. Im no theologian but I can think of many ways God could act without us being able to detect it scientifically.
Yeah, and you're right, but you might be ignoring the very real and persistent tendency to state, for example, that divine intervention isn't needed because the theory accounts for everything. Now, this may not be technically true, and it might be an overstepping of bounds, but it has been done more than some of the time. I think that only just recently, as they are being called on it, they are removing the starker statements from the textbooks.

Also, I think that the time is probably close at hand when science will either hit a wall, or open itself to the possibility of what the new agers call 'subtle energies.' I am not actually convinced that there is such a thing as the nonmaterial. What there is, is energies and particles that we cannot measure or access but I think that we can discover them either indirectly, or improve our instruments and access more than currently. This will open up our understanding greatly about how the universe really works and solve problems like ESP. Traditionally, when people get an intuition about these less perceivable realms, they assign them to the 'supernatural' but it isn't supernatural. No more supernatural than an ultraviolet ray.  

Lenny, I will not entertain your silly nonquestions. They are based on unfounded assumption and reading comprehension deficits.

Cedric,

I tried that, and it ended up eating all my free time, while I argued against 8 or 9, and got called a liar and evasionist by GCT who it seemed to me often twisted my words and referred back to things I had said pages earlier. I was told to do my homework but I was the only one who did so. I tried to go through some essays about the flagellum, but no one but me would read the texts. I was told to read Mayr's book, so I bought it and tried to read it. It was simplistic and utterly boring, since the pabulum it spoke of I had long since seen refuted in great detail. What I come away with is that people quite often (not always) read things with a jaundiced eye. We see a debate between Miller and Dembski. In my eyes, Dembski wins; in your eyes, Miller wins.

So why do I think the ID folk are more accurate in this case? Because they have a different blind spot. The blind spot for the people here involves how evolution theory supports their worldview (perhaps their career), and they do not want to scrutinize it honestly. The people at a site like UD, have a blind spot that is about their religion. They have no more willingness to look at that than you guys do here to look at yours. Since the question of origins is not on the exact bullseye of their blind spot, they can evaluate it fairly honestly. Behe is a prime example. He already had a career in molecular biology, and he was already comfortable with his religion, so when he read Denton's book he could decide either way without it hurting him where he lives.

If you were interested to know the arguments for ID, why should I spend a godawful amount of time trying to do a half-decent job of dredging it up when you could read the authors of it yourself, and get a far better picture. One book I like is Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, it is written by a secular person who is not in with any group.

Arden,
I have pretty much the same thing to say about Judge Jones. Plenty has been written about this. I didn't follow the trial as much as I could have, but I definitely think he ignored and had no intention of listening to the evidence except from one side. Yes, that does make a person look foolish, or perhaps that is too kind a word.

I am interested in seeing why Dave Scot gets himself banned from various sites. Why here, and what's the PT story? Does he behave in a manner he would not tolerate on his own site?

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,13:13   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,13:01)
Arden,
I have pretty much the same thing to say about Judge Jones. Plenty has been written about this. I didn't follow the trial as much as I could have, but I definitely think he ignored and had no intention of listening to the evidence except from one side. Yes, that does make a person look foolish, or perhaps that is too kind a word.

Ah.. Gotcha. You don't need to follow the event too closely if you think he might have ignored one side using your ESP powers or whatever. Perhaps you could make an 'intent' detector, they could use one in the ID camp.

You are one bad hand-waving Tard. No offense, like.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,13:24   

Quote
I didn't follow the trial as much as I could have, but I definitely think he ignored and had no intention of listening to the evidence except from one side.


Let me get this straight: You didn't follow the trial, but you have reached your conclusion.  And now you're accusing Jones of only looking at the evidence from one side?

I personally did follow the trial.  I read the daily transcripts, not just the news bites.  I read the decision multiple times.  ID had a fair hearing, and that's all there is to it.  They brought the best they could offer (those that weren't too afraid that is) and got shut down.  Read the transcripts to find out why.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,13:33   

Quote

I am interested in seeing why Dave Scot gets himself banned from various sites. Why here, and what's the PT story? Does he behave in a manner he would not tolerate on his own site?


On April 2, 2005, DaveScot made the following post at PT:

 
Quote
Posted by DaveScot on April 2, 2005 9:30 PM (e)

H fckng sshls. plgz t Dvsn NW bfr gt pssd ff nd strt fckng wth . dn’t wnt t mk m md. Trst m n ths. r scrt scks bg tm.


You will see this got disemvowelled. With the vowels put back in, this is:

 
Quote
Hey you fucking assholes. Apologize to Davison NOW before I get pissed off and start fucking with you. You don't want to make me mad. Trust me on this. Your security sucks big time.


This is Dave's version of events:

 
Quote

My comments were arbitrarily deleted and disemvoweled at Panda's Thumb. Trying to escape that treatment I resorted to using randomly selected names. I was then banned for using multiple names.


You can judge for yourself whether Dave would tolerate this at UD.

   
Quote
Plenty has been written about this.


Yes, but most of the anti-Jones polemics I've seen -- pretty much all of them actually -- are wildly disingenuous or outright dishonest and depend heavily on attacks on his character. I guess we were wondering if you had something a little more substantial than that.

But all I'm seeing is that you didn't like Judge Jones's decision, which all by itself proves Jones 'didn't listen to the evidence'. If Judge Jones had 'listened to the evidence', he certainly would have come to a pro-ID conclusion which somehow still eludes the vast majority of scientists -- and thereby avoided looking 'foolish'.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
don_quixote



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,15:05   

Oh, dear. This looks as if it's going to be another car-crash. I should look away, but..... nah, can't resist.


Avocationist,

It would be great if you could bring something new to the table, but I suspect you are going to give us the same old canards we've all heard before.

PROVE ME WRONG!

In order to help you, I strongly suggest that before you post your comments, you consult this easy to navigate list of creo/ID arguments, and check that your's hasn't already been addressed. It will save everyone's time, and may help prevent you from making a complete fool of yourself.

As the great Mark Twain once said: "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

Bon chance!

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,15:05   

Quote (Russell @ Jan. 22 2007,07:18)
We get rid of the wacky funhouse world of afdave, only to re-acquire the pretzel-logic of avocationist?

Oh come on; I'm having a great time murdering Dave's "Arguments."

He never runs out of wacky things to say. His latest is his claim that physical cosmology, abiogenesis, and for all I know, number theory, are all part of the Theory of Evolution.

You can't write comedy like this!

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,15:21   

Quote
I was told to do my homework but I was the only one who did so. I tried to go through some essays about the flagellum, but no one but me would read the texts.
OK. Now you are lying.
Quote
I was told to read Mayr's book, so I bought it and tried to read it. It was simplistic and utterly boring, since the pabulum it spoke of I had long since seen refuted in great detail.
Avo, meet afdave; dave, meet Avo. The two of you appear to have been separated at birth.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,16:08   

avocationist. Let me give you a clue about behaviour here. If you make a claim that is disputed, you are expected to back your argument up with evidence, logic or something else that supports your statements. You will not get a free ride. On the other hand you will not be censored for a long time.

May I suggest that you pick one statement made by you that was quoted by Louis in the opening post and argue the case?

IF avocasionist does that, would everyone else agree to deal with one topic at a time? Otherwise this thread will be "all over the place".

My bid would be for positive evidence for ID (that should be the quickest to be got-done with).

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,16:16   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,14:01)
If you were interested to know the arguments for ID, why should I spend a godawful amount of time trying to do a half-decent job of dredging it up when you could read the authors of it yourself, and get a far better picture. One book I like is Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, it is written by a secular person who is not in with any group.

I checked out some of the "Darwinsim FAQs" on Milton's (author of Shattering) website.  They're somewhat amusing if you haven't checked them out yet.

Quote
For example, an old favourite that Darwinists often try to slip in by the back door is the idea that all the different breeds of dog are different species, when in fact all breeds of dog, from the tiny Chihuahua to the Great Dane, are all members of a single species, Canis familiaris, and are capable of interbreeding.

Quote
In precisely the same way, because of its infinitely elastic definition, natural selection can be made to explain opposed and even mutually contradictory individual adaptations. For example, Darwinists claim that camouflage coloring and mimicry (as in leaf insects) is adaptive and will be selected for, yet they also claim that warning coloration (the wasp's stripes) is adaptive and will be selected for. Yet if both propositions are true, any kind of coloration will have some adaptive value, whether it is partly camouflage or partly warning, and will be selected for.


Avocationist, regardless of whether or not Milton claims to be a creationist, he is using creationist sources when he researches his book.  And please, try to prove me wrong on this point.  Check the references he cites and tell me how many of them are either creationists, DI fellows, or well-known quotemines of actual scientists.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,16:24   

I'm getting the distinct impression that because Avocationist has been asked to talk about his/her ID ideas on this thread, this is the very last thing he/she will do. So at least we have somewhere troll free!

Personally I curious as to why when one troll disappears we get another right on its heels. I really am suspicious!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,16:35   

Maybe trolls are territorial, or maybe they don't like to get in each other's way? :p

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,17:14   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 22 2007,16:24)
Personally I curious as to why when one troll disappears we get another right on its heels. I really am suspicious!

Maybe you need to ask a knowledgeable person who runs the board to track some IPs  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,17:46   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,13:01)
Lenny, I will not entertain your silly nonquestions.

I don't blame you.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,17:53   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 22 2007,16:24)
I'm getting the distinct impression that because Avocationist has been asked to talk about his/her ID ideas on this thread, this is the very last thing he/she will do.

She seems interested only in discussing her religious opinions.  Apparently she's holier than everyone else, because of her aura, or something.  

Seems she's some sort of New Agey nutter.  They are every bit as tard-filled as the fundies.  

Remember what I said before about the finger pointing at the moon -- how some people never see the moon at all, but instead study the finger minutely, in every wrinkley detail?

Ding ding ding.

Back in my younger days, I was always excited to meet girls like this at Rainbow Gatherings.  It was always absurdly easy to get them in the sack.

Waddya say, Avocation?  Wanna help me find my Spiritual Harmonic Convergence?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,18:25   

A fisking "review" of Richard Milton's "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" can be found at http://www.2think.org/darwinism.shtml
Quote
"In summary, Milton falls woefully short of the title's claim. It would take a book longer than the one Milton wrote to fully debunk and analyze his errors. I have merely scratched the surface in this too-brief review. He is unfocused, unclear, and hypocritical. He offers no alternative theory, doesn't adequately do away with any aspect or aspects of neo-Darwinism, and his fact- gathering skills need work."

I'd be glad to discuss Milton's claims about the "myths" of radiometric dating, uniformitarianism and natural selection, if you're up to that, Avocationist.

I assume you have his book. I won't mind dismantling it, but I have a sneaking suspicion you may not actually know much about these topics. I'll be visiting the bookstore tonight to read through Milton's work, so you won't be able to say that I really NEED to read it before criticizing the ideas it contains. In the meantime, perhaps you can tell me why I should not accept carbon dating and ...oh, say potassium-argon dating? Be clear, and use valid arguments, not just isolated examples where creationists and others have misapplied the methods. Radioactive decay is a statistically valid concept that can be used to measure the age of materials, Avocationist...Show me why it's specifically invalid in all cases.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
phonon



Posts: 396
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,18:46   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,13:01)
Yeah, and you're right, but you might be ignoring the very real and persistent tendency to state, for example, that divine intervention isn't needed because the theory accounts for everything.
I hate to just make this an even larger dogpile, but...

Don't you see what argument you are making here? All you are saying is that if the theory doesn't explain it, then divine intervention is a plausible alternative. That's not really testable, is it? I've never seen a good way to scientifically rule-in divine intervention.  

 
Quote
Also, I think that the time is probably close at hand when science will either hit a wall, or open itself to the possibility of what the new agers call 'subtle energies.'
Ay ay ay. Call Deepak Chopra. If you want to call Dark Matter and Dark Energy 'subtle energies' that's fine, but to think that they are somehow mystical or magical is silly and again, I've never seen a good scientific way in which to rule-in divine intervention or supernatural forces.

 
Quote
I am not actually convinced that there is such a thing as the nonmaterial.
Uh, really?  
Quote
What there is, is energies and particles that we cannot measure or access but I think that we can discover them either indirectly, or improve our instruments and access more than currently.
Hey, now that's starting to sound all sciency.  
Quote
This will open up our understanding greatly about how the universe really works and solve problems like ESP.
I think ESP has been debunked by more traditional methods.    
Quote
Traditionally, when people get an intuition about these less perceivable realms, they assign them to the 'supernatural' but it isn't supernatural. No more supernatural than an ultraviolet ray.
Um ok. But in science, traditionally, people don't assign these less perceivable realms to the supernatural. They assign them to the "I don't know" realm.

 
Quote
So why do I think the ID folk are more accurate in this case? Because they have a different blind spot. The blind spot for the people here involves how evolution theory supports their worldview (perhaps their career), and they do not want to scrutinize it honestly. The people at a site like UD, have a blind spot that is about their religion. They have no more willingness to look at that than you guys do here to look at yours. Since the question of origins is not on the exact bullseye of their blind spot, they can evaluate it fairly honestly.
Are you really really serious when you say that ID people, particularly the people at UD, do whatever it is they do HONESTLY? :(  

 
Quote
Behe is a prime example. He already had a career in molecular biology, and he was already comfortable with his religion, so when he read Denton's book he could decide either way without it hurting him where he lives.

Behe isn't at UD. But it definitely was Behe's "honesty" that helped in ID's defeat at Dover. :O

--------------
With most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation. - Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,18:53   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,14:01)
Cedric,

I tried that, and it ended up eating all my free time, while I argued against 8 or 9, and got called a liar and evasionist by GCT who it seemed to me often twisted my words and referred back to things I had said pages earlier.

You are a lying sack.  I documented your words and mine in detail and showed how you did just what you are accusing me of.  You are pathetic.  Normally I wouldn't speak this way, but you have shown yourself to be dishonest, unworthy of respect, and completely contemptible.

Quote
I was told to read Mayr's book, so I bought it and tried to read it. It was simplistic and utterly boring, since the pabulum it spoke of I had long since seen refuted in great detail.


You couldn't refute your way out of a paper sack.

Quote
So why do I think the ID folk are more accurate in this case? Because they have a different blind spot. The blind spot for the people here involves how evolution theory supports their worldview (perhaps their career), and they do not want to scrutinize it honestly.


And, I've already refuted that by pointing out those who believe in god/Christianity/etc. that also accept evolution.  Good job bring up old arguments that have already been shot to h*ll.

Quote
If you were interested to know the arguments for ID, why should I spend a godawful amount of time trying to do a half-decent job of dredging it up when you could read the authors of it yourself, and get a far better picture.


Because none of those authors give an account of what ID is, except as a religious apologetic.  You are too blind to notice that (using your own verbage).

Quote
I have pretty much the same thing to say about Judge Jones. Plenty has been written about this. I didn't follow the trial as much as I could have, but I definitely think he ignored and had no intention of listening to the evidence except from one side. Yes, that does make a person look foolish, or perhaps that is too kind a word.


How precious.  "I haven't followed the case, but I know Jones is stupid because I just know that ID is right...but don't ask me how...oh, and all of you are blind and unwilling to see."

Quote
I am interested in seeing why Dave Scot gets himself banned from various sites. Why here, and what's the PT story? Does he behave in a manner he would not tolerate on his own site?


Yes, he threatened to hack the site.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2007,23:44   

Improvius,

Quote
Avocationist, regardless of whether or not Milton claims to be a creationist, he is using creationist sources when he researches his book.  And please, try to prove me wrong on this point.  Check the references he cites and tell me how many of them are either creationists, DI fellows, or well-known quotemines of actual scientists.
His book was written in 1992. DI didn't exist. I see nothing wrong with quotemining so long as it is in context, and so long as the author is not misrepresented. I looked through his bibliography at the end and it is quite extensive, including many different sorts of people. If ID is true, then many of the creationist arguments will also be true and overlap, although many won't. This is a strange argument you use - that creationists are some sort of bad people (witches anyone?) and can not only be dismissed as a group, but any honorable mention is tainting.
Louis,
Quote
Personally I curious as to why when one troll disappears we get another right on its heels. I really am suspicious!
It's called serendipity!

Midnight,
Quote

Maybe you need to ask a knowledgeable person who runs the board to track some IPs
I have been the same persona here before and at UD for quite a long time. I inherited my husband's old computer a few months ago, though. You guys are so full of it. Who else writes with my ideas and style?
Quote

Waddya say, Avocation?  Wanna help me find my Spiritual Harmonic Convergence?
I told my husband that I find monogamy to be a mindless instinct controlling us via our selfish genes, but he said he is just not into sharing.

Deadman,
Quote
I'd be glad to discuss Milton's claims about the "myths" of radiometric dating, uniformitarianism and natural selection, if you're up to that, Avocationist. I assume you have his book. I won't mind dismantling it, but I have a sneaking suspicion you may not actually know much about these topics. I'll be visiting the bookstore tonight to read through Milton's work, so you won't be able to say that I really NEED to read it before criticizing the ideas it contains.
Deadman, I think that is just great that you plan to go to so much trouble. But I don't see how standing and reading through it in a bookstore would help us go through the text. I think we should both have a text available. It doesn't need to be that book. And no, I am certainly not qualified to discuss the various dating methods. Why would you pick that one? I have always read thru that stuff and just kept it in mind without taking it too strongly. I definitely think we don't know for sure if our dating methods are accurate, and I certainly have read some good criticisms, for example, of getting wildly different readings on the same sample with several methods.

Yo Phonon, loved your documentary-
Quote
Me:Yeah, and you're right, but you might be ignoring the very real and persistent tendency to state, for example, that divine intervention isn't needed because the theory accounts for everything.

You: Don't you see what argument you are making here? All you are saying is that if the theory doesn't explain it, then divine intervention is a plausible alternative. That's not really testable, is it? I've never seen a good way to scientifically rule-in divine intervention.  
No, I said nothing of the sort. I said that kids have been taught that there is no need to have a God to explain things anymore, because science has got it covered. That is uncalled-for, it is a metaphysical statement, and it is a positive statement.

Quote
Uh, really?  
When I say nonmaterial, I am not referring to nonmaterial things such as a concept. I mean I doubt the so-called spiritual realm is nonmaterial. But I do suspect that we have not been able to explore the whole enchilada, and that we are confined within a narrow band, much like our ability to percieve within the electromagnetic spectrum. On the other hand, I am not quite sure where consciousness fits into materiality.

Quote
Are you really really serious when you say that ID people, particularly the people at UD, do whatever it is they do HONESTLY?
Well, I do tend to be a little naive and give people the benefit of the doubt...Yes, what I said was that the ID people are in a better position to evaluate the claims of ID because they have less to lose. It's just pure probability! Of course, a lot of ID folk have not evaluated it much because it's just easier for them to accept it as it fits with their views. I think the Dover school board used it without even caring what it was about.
Quote

Behe isn't at UD. But it definitely was Behe's "honesty" that helped in ID's defeat at Dover.
I didnt say he had to be. I was simply showing that he was free to evaluate the ID book he read - Denton's - because he could go either way without much loss. What do you think Behe said that was dishonest? I read most of his testimony.

GCT,
Quote
You are a lying sack.
We can leave it at that. Of the six remarks you made, 4 showed misinterpretations of what I said. So it would just be a go-round to little purpose.

  
Serendipity



Posts: 28
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,00:11   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,23:44)
It's called serendipity!

You called?

Suffice to say is there any evidence for Intelligent Design?

--------------
Without question or false modesty, no success has owed more to serendipity than ours. (Fischer)

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,04:10   

Avocationist,

I wouldn't call it serendipity, I'd call it suspicious at worst or unfortunate at best. Some people, no names mentioned, no fingers pointed, use the internet as a sheild between themselves and the deep loathfulness of their behaviour. I have to confess I have no idea why anyone would do this, beyond the obvious pranking.

Louis

P.S. Serendipity, based on experience of Avocationist thus far, no we are not going to see any evidence of ID. All we are going to get from him/her/it is a lot of sanctimonious abuse, claims of "independent thinking" (when what Avocationist is doing is manifestly neither independent or thinking), a large dose of intellectual dishonesty all coupled with the usual hand waving, lies, lack of understanding and bullshit. Of course I am extremely happy to be proven wrong about this (those like Avocationist never get this part) but what proving me wrong requires is actually knowing what they are talking about and being intellectually deft and honest enough to form a coherent argument (another thing they don't get). Based on 14/15 years of dealing with creationists on a nearly daily basis, my bet would not be an optimistic one. I live in hope of being proven wrong about that though, it did happen a couple of times, less than 1% of the total though. Oh well.

--------------
Bye.

  
Cedric Katesby



Posts: 55
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,05:12   

Quote
If you were interested to know the arguments for ID, why should I spend a godawful amount of time trying to do a half-decent job of dredging it up when you could read the authors of it yourself, and get a far better picture. One book I like is...

Ah no.
On the UD thread I said                    
Quote
I just want your version of a scientific argument for ID.

Please note the "your" part of that quote.
I'll admit I got a little lax on this thread and foolishly posted something less specific...                  
Quote
Scientific argument for ID please.

I apologise for any confusion.

I am only interested in your scientific version of ID.

If you told somebody at a party that you supported ID and you wanted to sate their curiosity then how would you make a simple, concise scientific argument for ID in sixty seconds/two minutes/ whatever?
If you don't want to do it, then fine.
Please don't dredge or do anything only half-decent on my account! :O
Its just that I am curious what thought processes run through a person's head when they get into the whole ID thing.  
For me, the ID movement is a slow-motion train wreck, graphically illustrating anti-science and abysmally bad critical thinking skills.
I don't know you except that you post on UD and that you seem to support ID.
Can you make a real argument that does not involve hand-waving or vague, useless definitions?
You complained that in previous arguments with GCT that he twisted your words and              
Quote
...referred back to things I had said pages earlier.

Well, I don't know about the word twisting but the referencing of your own words doesn't seem unreasonable.  After all, what's the point of writing something if you're not going to stand by it later?
Come on Advocationist, just share your personal understanding of ID with us. AFDave got dreadfully dull after a while, but judging from the Herculean length of his threads, nobody can say we didn't give him a fair chance to state his case.  In fact, we repeatedly begged him to.  Can you do better?

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,07:06   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,23:44)
I said that kids have been taught that there is no need to have a God to explain things anymore, because science has got it covered.

I don't recall seeing that in any science textbook I've ever read.  Can you cite an example?  Or are you just confusing "atheism" with "science" (and are too dumb to tell the difference)?


Not to mention that teaching kids "there is no need to have a god" is, in the United States, against the law.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,07:11   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,23:44)
His book was written in 1992. DI didn't exist.

ID appeared in the draft of "Pandas and People" in 1987, literally weeks after the Supreme Court ruling that outlawed creation 'science'.

Avocation, since your sermons are all full of "I don't know anything about this" and "I haven't really studied that", I'm curious as to  . . .  uh . . . why you continue to yammer stupidly about things you don't know anything about?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Serendipity



Posts: 28
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,07:46   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 23 2007,04:10)
P.S. Serendipity, based on experience of Avocationist thus far, no we are not going to see any evidence of ID. All we are going to get from him/her/it is a lot of sanctimonious abuse, claims of "independent thinking" (when what Avocationist is doing is manifestly neither independent or thinking), a large dose of intellectual dishonesty all coupled with the usual hand waving, lies, lack of understanding and bullshit. Of course I am extremely happy to be proven wrong about this (those like Avocationist never get this part) but what proving me wrong requires is actually knowing what they are talking about and being intellectually deft and honest enough to form a coherent argument (another thing they don't get). Based on 14/15 years of dealing with creationists on a nearly daily basis, my bet would not be an optimistic one. I live in hope of being proven wrong about that though, it did happen a couple of times, less than 1% of the total though. Oh well.

Hello, Louis.

I could perhaps go into a long diatribe with supported psychological evidence as to why people adopt a persona in order to communicate in chat, not necessarily being able to reconcile succinctly their chat persona to their "actual" persona - that would be a different thread altogether.

Upon reading some of Avocationist's posts, suffice to say they are articulate and eloquent.. but how should one say.. their science "sucks". I was glad to see that they admitted that science and maths they were not. That was a welcomed snippet of honesty. Because, I have never seen entropy  described in quite that way. Nor is it a philosophical term nor up for metaphorical interpretation. It is a mathematical principle. It is not disorganisation. That's implying that it was once in an organised state. Entropy is whatever the equation defines it to be. This does not mean a philosophical restatement - it means "mathematics"

Louis, I have not been dealing with creationists and ID'ers as long as you and I commend your steadfast dedication.  I've had 9 years exposure to an assortment of these citizens. With a lack of intellectual integrity, and a lack of substantive evidence FOR their generalised paradigm of either a creator or intelligent designer, I dare say that for most parts (and speaking personally) they have become a clique. At most, an abomination to the world of Academia. So excuse me if I do not wait with baited breath. I shall be waiting with absolute cynicism. Adieu.

Serendipity.

--------------
Without question or false modesty, no success has owed more to serendipity than ours. (Fischer)

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,08:14   

Serendipity,

Quote
I could perhaps go into a long diatribe with supported psychological evidence as to why people adopt a persona in order to communicate in chat, not necessarily being able to reconcile succinctly their chat persona to their "actual" persona - that would be a different thread altogether.


Ooooh oooooh! Yes please.

[Gollum from LOTR like voice but really from H2G2]

Mmmm psychology, a new pleasure!

[/Gollum from LOTR like voice but really from H2G2*]

I for one have just about enough time to be me, being someone else as well is a practical impossibility. After all, who would look after my fish?

Quote
Louis, I have not been dealing with creationists and ID'ers as long as you and I commend your steadfast dedication.


Nothing to commend, I just don't like liars. Especially liars who are trying to subvert science. Apart from that, many/most people you'll encounter here have been at this far longer then I, and far more seriously. Take Wesley or Lenny or Dr GH as just a light selection of examples.

Quote
So excuse me if I do not wait with baited breath. I shall be waiting with absolute cynicism. Adieu.


I'll join you in a distinct lack of optimism and a healthy dose of realism and scepticism. I'll leave the cynicism to you if you don't mind, but I think we can both indulge in a deep vein of sarcasm at the appropriate moment.

I am with Lenny on finding the "I don't know shit about this but I's an indypendent thinkerer and so I ain't gonna believe nuthin you say Mr Man" attitude of Avocationist amusing. I'm also pretty sure I'm not alone in finding a good portion of that natural scepticism healthy. I wonder what we'll have next.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,08:17   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,00:44)
Improvius,

 
Quote
Avocationist, regardless of whether or not Milton claims to be a creationist, he is using creationist sources when he researches his book.  And please, try to prove me wrong on this point.  Check the references he cites and tell me how many of them are either creationists, DI fellows, or well-known quotemines of actual scientists.
His book was written in 1992. DI didn't exist. I see nothing wrong with quotemining so long as it is in context, and so long as the author is not misrepresented. I looked through his bibliography at the end and it is quite extensive, including many different sorts of people. If ID is true, then many of the creationist arguments will also be true and overlap, although many won't. This is a strange argument you use - that creationists are some sort of bad people (witches anyone?) and can not only be dismissed as a group, but any honorable mention is tainting.

The DI was founded in 1990.  And besides that, many of its present fellows were publishing books before then.  So, care to list the bibliography names for us?

And if this is such a "strange argument", then why did you bring it up in the first place?  You were the one who originally claimed Milton to be a "secular" source.  That's the point I'm challenging you on.  In any case, it isn't that creationists are "bad people" (though I'm sure some of them are), but rather that their opinions on science are, by their own admission, heavily biased.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,08:42   

Quote
This is a strange argument you use - that creationists are some sort of bad people (witches anyone?) and can not only be dismissed as a group, but any honorable mention is tainting.


This is based at least partly on a false equivocation. Creationists are not bad people per se, but the ideas they hold are (note seperation of idea and person. Quite important). Creationist/IDCist ideas have been regularly, routinely and rampantly refuted for over a century and a half now. It isn't a poor assumption (based on evidence) to think that anyone espousing creationist boilerplate (esp. well refuted boilerplate) is either:

1) Very silly (no bad thing, we can all be very silly)
2) Ignorant of the relevant science (still no bad thing, we aren't born knowing everything)
3) Mistaken (still not a bad thing, we all make mistakes)
4) Misled (still not a bad thing, we all are sometimes lead astray by less than scrupulous persons)
5) Dishonest (bad thing)

Most creationists I have met fall into the first 4 categories. A small but vocal minority fall into the last one.

How can I say this terrible thing? Well, simply put, whilst all people are equally valid and wonderful, not all opinions or ideas are equally valid and wonderful. Some ideas are more supported by the available evidence than other ideas. Creationist/IDCist ideas are very poorly supported by any evidence, in fact they have no evidence whatsoever in their favour (and yes I am aware you don't get this part because I have read your posts). Thus they are not the equal of scientific ideas in terms of their support by the available evidence. It is on this criterion alone that they are judged.

The difficulty I face, as a scientist interested in the accurate public communication of science, is when I encounter someone like you who espouses IDCist ideas is deciding which category above you fit into and thus how much of my time I am going to waste on you. Or indeed if that time is a waste at all. If you're in categories 1 to 4, then the chances are that any conversation with you will be illuminating and entertaining for me, and hopefully useful for you too. If it's category 5, then I'm sad to say we have nothing to talk about. There's not much point is having a dialogue with anyone who is willing to lie to avoid admitting when they are wrong about something.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,08:43   

The Discovery Institute does predate by several years the founding of the DI Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture in 1996.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,08:52   

Quote (Serendipity @ Jan. 23 2007,08:46)
Because, I have never seen entropy  described in quite that way. Nor is it a philosophical term nor up for metaphorical interpretation. It is a mathematical principle. It is not disorganisation. That's implying that it was once in an organised state. Entropy is whatever the equation defines it to be. This does not mean a philosophical restatement - it means "mathematics"

Here's my quick and dirty (although factually correct) answer to avocationist about Entropy and "disorganizing force" on the LUCA thread.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=48179

Mike PSS

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,08:57   

Wesley, for the record, what exactly did Dave Scot do to get banned from ATBC?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,09:23   

Avo:

What.  Is.  Your.  Proposed.  Scientific.  Theory.  Of.  Intelligent.  Design?

Just once, any IDer, anywhere, ever, please tell us what the theory is supposed to be.  

What is your model, how can it be tested, and what does it predict?

In your response, please feel free to omit references to the alleged inadequacies of any other theory.

Also please keep in mind that part of the bargain is that you need to be prepared to update or discard your theory should it be falsified.  If you cannot commit to this, please leave science alone and go back to church.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,11:08   

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Jan. 23 2007,09:23)
Avo:

What.  Is.  Your.  Proposed.  Scientific.  Theory.  Of.  Intelligent.  Design?

Just once, any IDer, anywhere, ever, please tell us what the theory is supposed to be.

In case Avocationist feels that it's too much of a challenge to concisely state the Theory of ID, let's note that Mr. Darwin managed to summarise his ideas about evolution in one paragraph:

"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."


ID version, please?

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,12:31   

The level of hostility and uncalled-for insults is absolutely shocking. what person who has dropped by at UD has ever been descended upon by a riverful of pirhanas each biting and tearing apart a person they haven't even learned anything about. when you come to UD, do they expect you to lay out the TOE in a nutshell? The most any one person can do is post to a topic and take exception to the small area is discusses. And I mostly see ID challenges go unanswered. All I did was drop by to say hello. there is no way I can cope, timewise, with this level of challenge.
Quote
I could perhaps go into a long diatribe with supported psychological evidence as to why people adopt a persona in order to communicate in chat, not necessarily being able to reconcile succinctly their chat persona to their "actual" persona


It is surely a waste of time to even try to reason with people like this bunch here.

I am disgusted. What a lot of pent up rage.

Serendipity, is that your real name?  Well, what do you know. Avocationist is not my real name either. What the he11 did you think I meant by persona? I don't treat people any differently online than I do anywhere else.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,12:39   

I think that I have seen pent-up rage lower the level of discussion before. There's a thread about that here, even.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,12:40   

Quote
when you come to UD, do they expect you to lay out the TOE in a nutshell? The most any one person can do is post to a topic and take exception to the small area is discusses. And I mostly see ID challenges go unanswered

1. Yes. Or, conversely if you merely point out errors in reasoning and raise valid points in contradiction to their alleged "theories" and "facts," then you get banned.
2. What challenges did you make? When I offered to take up specific aspects of a book that you claimed to find essential to your layman's understanding...you didn't want to do so. If you have an actual challenge to make, do so.
3. All you were asked to do was to lay out, in your own words, a personal vision of what you believed ID to be. If you feel that you have been insulted, perhaps you might want to look at your own posts and see if you have not been insulting, or perhaps you might want to develop a slightly thicker skin or you might even want to portray yourself further as a martyr by storming off in a huff and not coming back. Oh, so many choices when you seek to avoid a direct line of questioning, eh?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,12:47   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 23 2007,08:11)
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 22 2007,23:44)
His book was written in 1992. DI didn't exist.

ID appeared in the draft of "Pandas and People" in 1987, literally weeks after the Supreme Court ruling that outlawed creation 'science'.

Avocation, since your sermons are all full of "I don't know anything about this" and "I haven't really studied that", I'm curious as to  . . .  uh . . . why you continue to yammer stupidly about things you don't know anything about?

Lenny, DI = Disco(very) Institute.  Even so, Avo is still incorrect.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,12:50   

Quote
what person who has dropped by at UD has ever been descended upon by a riverful of pirhanas each biting and tearing apart a person they haven't even learned anything about

Me, under two different names. Zachriel under...I think three different names, and he is invariably polite. I'm sure others here could list the times they've been banned after attacks...or even better yet, banned without even having their comments appear, so as to give the false impression that UD condones dissent. An even more amusing little trick is to NOT directly ban names and posts, but to have the posts themselves never appear, or claim they were "lost" in the moderation queue. Some high-profile names have been tolerated for a while...McNeil comes to mind...and you'll say he was not subjected to multiple questions? Pfft.

Post Script: Just for your enlightenment, Avocationist, you can read the story of "Febble" a female poster at UD who was banned for having the temerity to expose the vacuous nature of ID :   http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/the_sad_state_o.html

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,12:53   

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Jan. 23 2007,09:23)
Avo:

What.  Is.  Your.  Proposed.  Scientific.  Theory.  Of.  Intelligent.  Design?

Just once, any IDer, anywhere, ever, please tell us what the theory is supposed to be.  

What is your model, how can it be tested, and what does it predict?

In your response, please feel free to omit references to the alleged inadequacies of any other theory.

Also please keep in mind that part of the bargain is that you need to be prepared to update or discard your theory should it be falsified.  If you cannot commit to this, please leave science alone and go back to church.

I second this. My pent up rage toward xians is in a pretty small pen and doesn't need much tending but I am mildly offended by a group making claims about god, heaven, morality and the like as if they know for sure. Kind of stifles thinking if you know what I mean.

By all means, whatever floats your boat. I don't even care if you write about how your faith has made you so much happier and better looking. But I do care that someone might go out and claim that there is ANY science left to whatever flavored god you prostrate yourself before.

ID is not currently science. It can't be studied yet. So, if you want to argue that evolution, which is falsifiable (easily), doesn't best explain what we see then you'd better have a lot of info at your fingertips. I read Darwin's Black Box and my 30 year old science education was enough to shred it for logical inconsistencies, projection, flat innaccuracies and sheer stupidity. And Behe isn't a dumb guy nor is he ignorant. So, have a go. But don't be surprised if folks here ask you for specifics because, frankly, no one has yet made a single argument refuting ToE.

But, you may be the first.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,12:54   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,13:31)
The level of hostility and uncalled-for insults is absolutely shocking. what person who has dropped by at UD has ever been descended upon by a riverful of pirhanas each biting and tearing apart a person they haven't even learned anything about. when you come to UD, do they expect you to lay out the TOE in a nutshell? The most any one person can do is post to a topic and take exception to the small area is discusses. And I mostly see ID challenges go unanswered. All I did was drop by to say hello. there is no way I can cope, timewise, with this level of challenge.
 
Quote
I could perhaps go into a long diatribe with supported psychological evidence as to why people adopt a persona in order to communicate in chat, not necessarily being able to reconcile succinctly their chat persona to their "actual" persona


It is surely a waste of time to even try to reason with people like this bunch here.

I am disgusted. What a lot of pent up rage.

Serendipity, is that your real name?  Well, what do you know. Avocationist is not my real name either. What the he11 did you think I meant by persona? I don't treat people any differently online than I do anywhere else.

Then I guess you must get all huffy and bent out of shape whenever someone disagrees with you in person, too.  Wow, you must be loads of fun to hang out with.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,13:01   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 23 2007,12:50)
Quote
what person who has dropped by at UD has ever been descended upon by a riverful of pirhanas each biting and tearing apart a person they haven't even learned anything about

Me, under two different names. Zachriel under...I think three different names, and he is invariably polite. I'm sure others here could list the times they've been banned after attacks...or even better yet, banned without even having their comments appear, so as to give the false impression that UD condones dissent. Some high-profile names have been tolerated for a while...McNeil comes to mind...and you'll say he was not subjected to multiple questions? Pfft.

Also, what happened to Elizabeth Liddle AKA Febble at UD earlier this month was extremely instructive. Act totally civilized, totally polite, don't get angry, explain things patiently, contradict Dave Scot, you're banned.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,13:04   

Hah, yeah, I added that in a post script, too, Arden. We were both thinking along the same lines. And, avocationist, that was within just the last 10 days.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,13:05   

Quote
The level of hostility and uncalled-for insults is absolutely shocking. what person who has dropped by at UD has ever been descended upon by a riverful of pirhanas each biting and tearing apart a person they haven't even learned anything about. when you come to UD, do they expect you to lay out the TOE in a nutshell? The most any one person can do is post to a topic and take exception to the small area is discusses. And I mostly see ID challenges go unanswered. All I did was drop by to say hello. there is no way I can cope, timewise, with this level of challenge.


So we can assume this means that you're incapable of supporting the pro-ID, anti-evolution assertions you make, right?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
heddle



Posts: 124
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,13:11   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 23 2007,12:39)
I think that I have seen pent-up rage lower the level of discussion before. There's a thread about that here, even.

Wesley,

There are many instances on that thread of IDers using the Taliban analogy. In fairness, maybe you should add those cases in which people like PT contributor Gary Hurd and compulsive commenter Lenny Flank return the favor.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,13:13   

Quote
No, I said nothing of the sort. I said that kids have been taught that there is no need to have a God to explain things anymore, because science has got it covered. That is uncalled-for, it is a metaphysical statement, and it is a positive statement.
I agree that this can be a problem, but ID proponents that make this statement all the time if not more than atheists do. After all if this was their only problem it could be solved quite easily and then the only people who would be complaining would be biblical literalists and Richard Dawkins.

Quote
Yes, what I said was that the ID people are in a better position to evaluate the claims of ID because they have less to lose.
Except that most of them think that evolution=atheism so they have quite a lot too lose. Ill grant that there are exceptions but Im pretty sure that most biologists have nothing to loose. Mostly because I know a couple that don't believe in evolution don't have tenure and their careers are getting on pretty fine because they do good work. Im also not very sypmathetic to these types of claims becuase all the DI needs to do is come up with an ID theory and do some research to show it's a legitimate scientific field.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,13:41   

Heddle,

I never asserted that only ID advocates used invidious comparisons. I even noted an instance of Michael Shermer engaging in such in that original thread. As I noted there, the thread's purpose was to demonstrate definitively that the ID advocacy complement was not above using the rhetorical lowball that they get so exercised about when they are on the receiving end. I have been told on numerous occasions, for instance, the utter falsehood that William Dembski's demeanor is exchanges is wholly of an admirable character.

I certainly have no misconception that everyone arguing for good science education has behaved themselves and not indulged in unseemly rhetoric. I've probably been guilty of such in particular instances, though I do try to keep to a higher level. For others, we could argue cases. That, though, is not the point.

There are also numerous instances of ID advocates decrying bad uses of rhetoric utilized against them. The combination of the fact of invidious comparison use by ID advocates and the fact of their complaints against bad rhetoric leads to a particularly unsavory conclusion.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,13:43   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 23 2007,13:04)
Hah, yeah, I added that in a post script, too, Arden. We were both thinking along the same lines. And, avocationist, that was within just the last 10 days.

Great minds, etc.

There are a thousand stories of people being banned at UD for no good reason, but I mentioned Febble because her case was so egregious. There was absolutely no excuse for banning her save protecting Dave Scot & Dembski's fragile little egos. (But that's all UD has ever consisted of.)

Even Dave tacitly admitted this when the best he was able to do in the aftermath of banning her was to slime her statements (made elsewhere) on the honestly of US elections:

Quote

DaveScot wrote: “…if you google her a bit you’ll find she’s a left-wing conspiracy theorist that thinks Bush stole the 2004 election by fraud. People like that are uneducable. Good riddance”


So essentially Dave's admitting he had no excusable reason for banning her, but he's reassuring the 'base' that since she's a 'leftist', that alone justifies her banning.

Honestly, we could not ask for better, more self-destructive advocates of Intelligent Design.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Serendipity



Posts: 28
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,14:06   

Hello, Louis.

 
Quote
Ooooh oooooh! Yes please.

[Gollum from LOTR like voice but really from H2G2]


A man interested in my diatribe  :O  This could be promising... or it could be serendipity *chortles*

 
Quote
I for one have just about enough time to be me, being someone else as well is a practical impossibility. After all, who would look after my fish?


We all at some stage adopt a persona. Yes *all* of us. According to Labelling Theory we adopt these persona's to perform a specific role. Often these roles are positive, sometimes negative, sometimes psychiatric - that being that physiologically/psychiatrically we have a disposition towards persona's.. such as MP or Schizophrenia. Cybernetics is actually no different except more people have a tendency towards experimentation of a varity of persona's that they can adopt. In a sense this complies with Jungian persona's. This is also, all connected with communication. I suppose I could give a description relating to this thread.

A creationist begins communicating - often articulately and placidly. They will structurally present why they feel they are right in their given paradigm. Then that paradigm is challenged. The creationist will then adopt a martyr persona - the sadly misunderstood. Of course its due to people not being able to grasp what they are saying. They then become the "teachers". When then requested to support their claims with evidence, they are suddenly the "warrior".. steadfastly pushing ahead, secure in the knowledge that their teaching will miraculously convince people of their stance. When again requested to support their statements and supply evidence, they are suddenly the "persecuted" lost in a world of "blind people".. those blind to their vision. When still asked to support their claims, they become the "aggressive bull". Refusing to budge, reasserting their positions.

A variety of persona's are adopted during that description.

 
Quote
I just don't like liars. Especially liars who are trying to subvert science. Apart from that, many/most people you'll encounter here have been at this far longer then I, and far more seriously.


I used to come here months ago, and like Sir Toejam, just changed my name. My anger is towards the misinformation that creationists spread (yes, often lies) in relation to science. Science however, can withstand the barrage, my concern is those individuals and groups who are naive enough to adopt that misinformation and at a later stage when being hammered by those learned in sciences, when they are corrected - the original people/s that fed them this misinformation are often long gone and take no accountability. It annoys me.

 
Quote
I'll join you in a distinct lack of optimism and a healthy dose of realism and scepticism. I'll leave the cynicism to you if you don't mind, but I think we can both indulge in a deep vein of sarcasm at the appropriate moment.


Diogenes is fading into the distance.. however sarcasm is often a result of cynicism.. Diogenes as a slave once told the King to stand before him, when the King asked why, Diogenes said it was to block out the sun which was blinding him.

 
Quote
I wonder what we'll have next.


Another persona, more than likely *smirks*

Serendipity.

--------------
Without question or false modesty, no success has owed more to serendipity than ours. (Fischer)

  
Serendipity



Posts: 28
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,14:30   

Quote (Mike PSS @ Jan. 23 2007,08:52)

Hello, Mike PSS.

Quote
Here's my quick and dirty (although factually correct) answer to avocationist about Entropy and "disorganizing force" on the LUCA thread.


Nicely written, factual and correct. I also noticed it went unrefuted (as should be).

Serendipity.

--------------
Without question or false modesty, no success has owed more to serendipity than ours. (Fischer)

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,15:22   

Cedric,

Yours was probably the most thoughtful and constructive post, therefore, I'll have to put it off to deal with the mayhem, which never seems to stop.

Lenny,

No I can't cite an example of a textbook. I'm not going to that level of research for every comment I make and I don't have any on hand. I have read enough on this topic and talked to college kids about it. Specifically, a phrase to that effect was removed from a Miller textbook. That is, the word unguided was removed, I think.

Hello Louis,

Yes, you lead the pack. No I am not thin-skinned and I rarely get annoyed in real life or on line. You have called me a liar, you have called me loathsome, and a subverter of science. I happen to have a tremendous amount of love for science, and respect.

I am a monist, taoist, panentheistic sufi. Science and God and nature are nondifferent.

People who subvert science are those who try to stop debate and open inquiry. Understand?

Improvius,

I brought up Milton's book because he is not associated with DI. It was you who brought up the quality of his references. To the best of my knowledge, he is a secular source, although he has become rather new age, which doesn't bother me either. But he isn't in any Christian cartel.

Back to Louis,

You just can't lump anyone who disagrees with neoDarwinism into a group whose ideas are no good. Life just isn't that simple. Science would NEVER progress if you and yours got your way!!!

Arden,

Yes, I am interested to know what DS did here. I did read the PT thread, and agree that he should be banned for life for threatening to hack the site, and that his behavior (wording in his post) was hypocritical.

Occam and Stephen, your post on back burner along with Cedric

Wesley,

I'm going thru the list you linked, and some display bad behavior, but some are not that unreasonable. There is some sense in comparing this situation to other political situations that have occurred. There WAS a time when Darwin's new theory was utilized by certain groups to promote eugenics. The theory DOES lend itself to that. It's a sensitive spot and an historical mistake for which modern theorists should not be fried, it's just a part of history. And, equally, religions have used scripture to excuse their bad acts, so it is not unique to NDE.

I'm angry with Jonathan Wells because I bought his book a few years ago (before I ever heard the term ID) and he promised in his book cover that he was completely secular, and had accepted evolution at least in high school and I think early college. However, it turns out he was a man on a mission from the beginning. It is true that I like his book and that he kept religion out of it, but I don't appreciate being lied to. I did say that once on UD, and got no comment. At least I didn't get banned!

But some of the comparisons there are not quite what you make out. Johnson (he's a fundie, his kind worry me) did not really compare Gould to Gorbachev, but rather he compared their two situations, which is not the same thing.

Ditto Dembski comparison of Darwinisn and Soviet regime. There IS a hegemony, and it would be a loss/disruption to change it.

Deadman,

People are often attacked by Dave Scot for making unfounded assumptions. I don't approve of his style. But it is one assumption, one comment in one thread. When one of you go over there, you don't suddenly find yourself with your own thread and half the board throwing insults and challenges that are almost impossible to meet, sneering and mocking all the while, telling you to go back to your black sabbath and so forth.

I didn't say Milton's book was essential, I just named it as one of several. Personally, I like Denton's maybe best.


Quote
Me, under two different names. Zachriel under...I think three different names, and he is invariably polite. I'm sure others here could list the times they've been banned after attacks...or even better yet, banned without even having their comments appear, so as to give the false impression that UD condones dissent. An even more amusing little trick is to NOT directly ban names and posts, but to have the posts themselves never appear, or claim they were "lost" in the moderation queue.


Although I find some boards too tolerant of nut cases that can't be reasoned with or who are broken records, generally I despise censorship, and that very thing is why I posted at the uncommonly dense thread. My post got lost in cyberspace, and I couldn't even imagine why, but I was on moderation for criticizing DS for the very treatment you speak of. I understand it is a fast moving blog and they might need tighter control on mayhem than here, but I think the moderation style makes them appear weak.
Yes, I saw Febble post there, but I didn't witness the part that led up to her banning. I have read your link. Obviously she is very intelligent, but I did not agree with her on a couple of points. Frankly, her remarks really deserved an in-depth response.
Here is one thing she said: You guess at random, but when you get a correct answer for one slot, you get to keep it. You replicate what works, in other words. You don’t start from scratch each time.

That is a point of contention. How to keep answers which have no way of being correct until future answers arrive, such as with IC systems.
Also, I am pretty sure that she is twisting Dembski's words to give intelligence a meaning everyone knows he does not intend.

BWE,
Quote
I second this. My pent up rage toward xians is in a pretty small pen and doesn't need much tending but I am mildly offended by a group making claims about god, heaven, morality and the like as if they know for sure.
Really? I wonder who said this:

Just when I think I've got ahold of a true idea, I later realize that we just have no way of knowing much of anything. Or maybe we do, but when we think we know, we often don't, and there isn't much of a way to tell that we're in an ignorant state of false ideas. If we're lucky, we figure it out after the fact.
Yes, I think there is an obvious need for God as an explanation for existence. There is no other explanation, although what the nature of this God might be is up for conjecture.
As to whether the universe has purpose, I tend to sort of think so, but we might be out of our ken.


Arden,

Quote
So we can assume this means that you're incapable of supporting the pro-ID, anti-evolution assertions you make, right?
I am sure that if guys like Dembski and Behe and many, many others who are far more capable than I cannot do so, in fact have not brought out one good argument for ID, then I also cannot. But, more to the point that you responded to, as a group most of the people here are showing themselves unreasonable and irrational, and unreasonable people can't be reasoned with.

Last but not least, here is an example of just one uncalled for remark that shows relentless negativity and prejudice aforehand:
Quote
I also noticed it went unrefuted (as should be).
Has it occurred to anyone here that I've spent hours on this, and that I have not yet even gotten to the real questions, and furthermore, why in the world would I refute his discussion about the meaning of thermodynamics? There was not anything to refute.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,15:30   

[/QUOTE]Yes, you lead the pack. No I am not thin-skinned and I rarely get annoyed in real life or on line. You have called me a liar, you have called me loathsome, and a subverter of science. I happen to have a tremendous amount of love for science, and respect.[QUOTE]

Gosh have I called you loathsome and a liar and a subverter of science?

Remind me where I did that.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,15:33   

Hi, avocationist.

Why don't you provide your scientific theory of ID as many asked you to? Alternatively you could admit that you don't have any, or that you are not interested in fulfilling their requests.
It would save them some time.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,15:36   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,16:22)
Improvius,

I brought up Milton's book because he is not associated with DI. It was you who brought up the quality of his references. To the best of my knowledge, he is a secular source, although he has become rather new age, which doesn't bother me either. But he isn't in any Christian cartel.

The problem is that Milton isn't a source.  He's a journalist.  And he's relying primarily on creationist sources for his book.  So citing his book as a secular source is misleading.  It is in fact a compilation of creationist sources.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,15:45   

Quote
Cedric, Yours was probably the most thoughtful and constructive post, therefore, I'll have to put it off to deal with the mayhem, which never seems to stop.

Uh...this "mayhem" is ...typing. Pixels on a screen that you can turn off anytime...thus it "stops."

Quote
People are often attacked by Dave Scot for making unfounded assumptions. I don't approve of his style... When one of you go over there, you don't suddenly find yourself with your own thread and half the board throwing insults and challenges that are almost impossible to meet, sneering and mocking all the while

No, Dave Scot attacks people for multiple reasons, not just one. Reasons he's banned people can include being right, pointing out his errors, or Dembski's -- or asking that he back his claims. Dave Scot is not the only moderator there, either, and all of them have engaged in similar behavior, including Dembski. And yeah, I don't think you really have read through the threads there.
Oh, and finally, exactly what were you challenged on that you find impossible to meet? You were asked to describe your interpretation of ID, that's all. Is that "impossible?"

Finally...
Louis = LEADER OF THE PACK!! (vroom, vroom)



--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Serendipity



Posts: 28
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,15:54   

Hi Avocationist.

Quote
The level of hostility and uncalled-for insults is absolutely shocking. what person who has dropped by at UD has ever been descended upon by a riverful of pirhanas each biting and tearing apart a person they haven't even learned anything about.


Often when one comes under scrutiny or challenges made, it is perceived as hostility. After-all, no one likes being wrong, no one likes a direct challenge if they're not expecting it. However, your visualisation skills are very umm.. visual.

Quote
do they expect you to lay out the TOE in a nutshell?


That can be easily done and I remember being asked to do such a thing in both chat and in class.

Quote
All I did was drop by to say hello. there is no way I can cope, timewise, with this level of challenge.


Hello Avocation. I actually lack the time, and am doing this from work and during a coffee break.

Quote
It is surely a waste of time to even try to reason with people like this bunch here.

I am disgusted. What a lot of pent up rage.


I think "rage" is the improper terminology. Try skepticism. In my case, cynicism.

Quote
Serendipity, is that your real name?  Well, what do you know. Avocationist is not my real name either. What the he11 did you think I meant by persona? I don't treat people any differently online than I do anywhere else.


I would love to claim that "Serendipity" is a cacographical neologism which I am responsible for, but alas, I am probably sauntering over plagiarism even trying. Actually I was responding to Louis concerning persona - cybernetic psychology and in particular the various faces of individuals online has been a project I have been working on for a number of years. The only person I know on this list which I can say anything about persona or otherwise is the man that I have met face to face, even shared a bed with. To much information sure, but accurate enough.

--------------
Without question or false modesty, no success has owed more to serendipity than ours. (Fischer)

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,16:31   

Leader of the pack? I forgot to mention that.

Let me be the first to say: bollocks.

I feel that's all that needs saying.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
don_quixote



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,16:38   

Avocationist,

I imagine that the flaming you're getting does seem a little harsh, but you must understand that the AtBC regulars have had their patience pushed to the limit by people who come along making claims they cannot support (see AFDave's thread). We don't ask for much; we just ask that you tell us what your theory of I.D. is.

You see, if you claim that I.D. is a real scientific theory, but then can't tell us what you think the theory is, it doesn't reflect very well on you, does it?

So please, tell us what you think the theory of I.D. is.

:)

BTW, to avoid any unintended offence, do we refer to you as he or she? If you've already said, I apologise for asking again.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,16:51   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 23 2007,16:45)
No, Dave Scot attacks people for multiple reasons, not just one. Reasons he's banned people can include being right, pointing out his errors, or Dembski's -- or asking that he back his claims. Dave Scot is not the only moderator there, either, and all of them have engaged in similar behavior, including Dembski. And yeah, I don't think you really have read through the threads there.

I was once banned for posting a quote of Dembski's. I don't mean, posting a quote and then editorializing, I don't mean, posting a quote with some nefarious ellipses, I mean, my whole post was

"(blah blah blah some paragraph of Dembski's)

-William Dembski"

They banned me and deleted the quote when I hadn't said a single thing myself. The ban was because the quoted paragraph, from a few years ago, stood in utter contradiction to the words in Dembski's post I was commenting on.

I don't remember what the exact topic was. I think I documented it several hundred pages ago on this thread.

edit: not on this thread. on the UD thread.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,17:00   

Quote
I was once banned for posting a quote of Dembski's.


Steve, how many times have you been banned at UD?

And do you know the story of DS's banning from ATBC? Since the subject's come up, and all?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,17:04   

Quote
The ban was because the quoted paragraph, from a few years ago, stood in utter contradiction to the words in Dembski's post I was commenting on.  


Well certainly - really, how dare ya use the guy's own words that way! :p

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,18:11   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,00:44)
GCT,
 
Quote
You are a lying sack.
We can leave it at that. Of the six remarks you made, 4 showed misinterpretations of what I said. So it would just be a go-round to little purpose.

I'm glad that you can admit that at least 2 of those instances were lies....of course you aren't really doing that, you're just being your normal evasive, liar self.

Where's that evidence for ID?

Oh yeah, I forgot, your evidence is, "God exists, so ID exists...duh."

  
Serendipity



Posts: 28
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,18:18   

I cleared clients to be able to sit down and enjoy my lunch and read this dialogue (and probably play a game or two on Yahoo).

What is the supportive evidence for Intelligent Design?

--------------
Without question or false modesty, no success has owed more to serendipity than ours. (Fischer)

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,18:29   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,13:31)
The level of hostility and uncalled-for insults is absolutely shocking.

It is not uncalled for to call a liar a liar.  I have documented your lies.

Quote
what person who has dropped by at UD has ever been descended upon by a riverful of pirhanas each biting and tearing apart a person they haven't even learned anything about.


That's because dissenting opinion is weeded out and dissenters are banned.  Even then, the rhetoric of DaveTard ("Kill the Muslims", "PTers are all a bunch of church burners") and a few others surely wouldn't go unnoticed by such a free-thinker as yourself.

Quote
All I did was drop by to say hello. there is no way I can cope, timewise, with this level of challenge.

Numerous people have suggested taking topics one at a time, you ignore that because you can't defend a single thing you've said and find it would be easier to just act like it's our fault that you can't.  That way you think you can duck out with some face, but no one here buys it.

Quote
It is surely a waste of time to even try to reason with people like this bunch here.

I am disgusted. What a lot of pent up rage.

That's right, because you already know all the answers without having to do any of the work.  You don't know about the trial, but you know Jones was wrong.  You don't know about evolution, you just know it is wrong.  Etc.  You should be embarrassed.

Oh, and the pent up rage thing is ridiculous as well.  Yes, I dislike you for your lies, but what you are doing is appealing to a canard that is all too common among people like you.  "Oh, the atheists are all full of rage."  Yeah, right.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,18:42   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,16:22)
I'm angry with Jonathan Wells because I bought his book a few years ago (before I ever heard the term ID) and he promised in his book cover that he was completely secular, and had accepted evolution at least in high school and I think early college. However, it turns out he was a man on a mission from the beginning. It is true that I like his book and that he kept religion out of it, but I don't appreciate being lied to. I did say that once on UD, and got no comment. At least I didn't get banned!

[emphasis mine]

Oh the irony.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,18:59   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,15:22)
No I can't cite an example of a textbook.

No kidding.

That's because, uh, there ain't any.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,19:11   

Well, so far it seems that Avocation:

(1) doesn't understand what the ID movement is, or what it's all about  (which is why she doesn't understand why they hate her)
(2) doesn't understand Taoism, Sufism, Buddhism or any other -ism that I can see
(3) can't tell the difference between "science" and "atheism"
(4) doesn't know anything scientific, even remotely

and

(5) isn't interested in doing any research on any of the above.


She is here to (1) show everyone how "spiritual" she is, (2) feel good about how much better she is than all of us dolts, and (3) feed her massive martyr complex.

I find nothing she says either interesting or informative.

She could perhaps change that, by telling us all about ESP, ley lines, crystal healing, and the Celestine Prophecy.

(snicker)  (giggle)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,19:15   

Quote (heddle @ Jan. 23 2007,13:11)
[quote=Wesley R. Elsberry,Jan. 23 2007,12:39]I think that I have seen pent-up rage lower the level of discussion before.  In fairness, maybe you should add those cases in which people like PT contributor Gary Hurd and compulsive commenter Lenny Flank return the favor.

It's not an analogy.  It's a direct comparison.  The fundies ARE Taliban-wanna-be's.  Just read their Wedge Document.


(BTW, Heddle, thank you, sincerely, for shutting up --- if only for one post -- about your religious opinions.)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,19:26   

Quote
Avocationist:  I said that kids have been taught that there is no need to have a God to explain things anymore, because science has got it covered.


Me:  I don't recall seeing that in any science textbook I've ever read.  Can you cite an example?


Avocationist:  No I can't cite an example of a textbook. I'm not going to that level of research for every comment I make and I don't have any on hand. I have read enough on this topic and talked to college kids about it. Specifically, a phrase to that effect was removed from a Miller textbook. That is, the word unguided was removed, I think.



Um, leaving aside for the moment the simple fact that you are too pig-ignorant and uninformed to know the difference between Miller's textbook, and the proposed Kansas state science standards  (that word "unguided" was, uh, ADDED BY THE CREATIONISTS, and was TAKEN OUT BY VOTE OF THE NEWLY ELECTED EVOLUTIONIST MAJORITY) . . . .

Let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly . . . .

Your cited example of a textbook that says, quote, "there is no need to have a god to explain things any more", is a textbook that was written by Ken Miller, who is, um, a Roman Catholic Christian?

A Christian.

A theistic Christian.

A theistic, God-believing, Christian.

Is THAT what you're telling me?  In your view, the Christian Roman Catholic biologist, Ken Miller, was actually trying to use his textbook to teach kids that "there is no need for god" . . . . ?

Is THAT what you are trying to tell me?

Really?

Really and honestly?



Wow.  

No WONDER everyone thinks you have the brains of a  bowl of fruit.  


(snicker)  (giggle)  BWA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,19:33   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,12:31)
The level of hostility and uncalled-for insults is absolutely shocking.

(sniffle)  (sob)  Boo hoo hoo.


Heat.  Kitchen.  Bye.

Go whine to the UDers how mean we all were to you.  Maybe they'll like you then.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,19:42   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 23 2007,20:26)
Quote
Avocationist:  I said that kids have been taught that there is no need to have a God to explain things anymore, because science has got it covered.


Me:  I don't recall seeing that in any science textbook I've ever read.  Can you cite an example?


Avocationist:  No I can't cite an example of a textbook. I'm not going to that level of research for every comment I make and I don't have any on hand. I have read enough on this topic and talked to college kids about it. Specifically, a phrase to that effect was removed from a Miller textbook. That is, the word unguided was removed, I think.



Um, leaving aside for the moment the simple fact that you are too pig-ignorant and uninformed to know the difference between Miller's textbook, and the proposed Kansas state science standards  (that word "unguided" was, uh, ADDED BY THE CREATIONISTS, and was TAKEN OUT BY VOTE OF THE NEWLY ELECTED EVOLUTIONIST MAJORITY) . . . .

Let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly . . . .

Your cited example of a textbook that says, quote, "there is no need to have a god to explain things any more", is a textbook that was written by Ken Miller, who is, um, a Roman Catholic Christian?

A Christian.

A theistic Christian.

A theistic, God-believing, Christian.

Is THAT what you're telling me?  In your view, the Christian Roman Catholic biologist, Ken Miller, was actually trying to use his textbook to teach kids that "there is no need for god" . . . . ?

Is THAT what you are trying to tell me?

Really?

Really and honestly?



Wow.  

No WONDER everyone thinks you have the brains of a  bowl of fruit.  


(snicker)  (giggle)  BWA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh Lenny, it's even better than that.

See, Avo insists that Miller is a confused IDist, because he has to be since he believes in god.

If you point out to her that evolution has nothing to do with god and the two are not mutually exclusive, she will argue with you on that.  Then, a couple pages later, she will find some reason to assert that you are saying that evolution is atheistic and that god and evolution are not mutually exclusive, and how can you be so stupid as to think they are.

Then, when you point out that you already said that and that she claimed the opposite, she will claim that you are lying, twisting words, etc.  Then, later she will explain to you how others on the board convinced her that god and evolution are not mutually exclusive and if you just listen to her, you can understand that too.

When you get fed up with that and call her a liar, she will act like she doesn't understand why.  Meanwhile, she will go back to saying that Miller is a confused IDist because no one can believe in god and evolution since they are mutually exclusive.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,19:50   

Quote (GCT @ Jan. 23 2007,19:42)
See, Avo insists that Miller is a confused IDist, because he has to be since he believes in god.

Ahhh, she reminds me of some Hindu nutter (whose name unfortunately escapes me right now) who ran an email list that argued pretty much the same thing --- "Hindus have gods, ID requires a god, therefore Hindus must be IDers".

Indeed, this particular nutter was so insistent that everyone hear his Holy Words, that he would grab email addresses from several places (including t.o., where he apparently got me) and add them to his email list (without their permission or knowledge) so they'd have to listen to it, "for their own good".  When I unsubbed from his stupid-ass list, he added me again, and then, for some reason that I never figured out, actually made me a **co-moderator** of his list ("to encourage you to stay", he told me).

I promptly put his entire list on "moderated" status so no one could post, and deleted his entire archives.

After that, he never tried to sub me again.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,19:58   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 23 2007,20:11)
She is here to (1) show everyone how "spiritual" she is, (2) feel good about how much better she is than all of us dolts, and (3) feed her massive martyr complex.

Bingo.

She once told me that she has a keener sense of reality because she has done lots of studying about god and is now tuned to god, whereas I obviously have not done much study of god or thought much about it, and am obviously not as fulfilled or good as her.

She's just like any other fundy.  She's immune to facts, she's p*ss ignorant yet she thinks she knows all, she thinks she is better than all us "fundy" atheists, she can't answer a straight-forward question, she has a martyr complex, she lies, she rambles on and on never really making a point, she proselytizes...yep, she's a fundy (just not a born-again kind....maybe)

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,20:02   

Quote
Cedric said
Its just that I am curious what thought processes run through a person's head when they get into the whole ID thing.  
Well, I don't know about the word twisting but the referencing of your own words doesn't seem unreasonable.

Occam said
Just once, any IDer, anywhere, ever, please tell us what the theory is supposed to be.  

What is your model, how can it be tested, and what does it predict?

In your response, please feel free to omit references to the alleged inadequacies of any other theory.

Also please keep in mind that part of the bargain is that you need to be prepared to update or discard your theory should it be falsified.  If you cannot commit to this, please leave science alone and go back to church.

Stephen quotes Darwin-
"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."



1. I think GCT may have a personality disorder. Of course bringing up previous words is fine, but it was an endless morass. It gets hard to keep up the sense of the back and forth remarks when the conversation takes place with 9 people simultaneously, and everything gets misinterpreted again and again. And always petty stuff.

2. The theory of ID states that certain features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design.

3. My model? Why would I have my own model? My own prediction, is that as we learn more about evo-devo and epigenetic factors, we will learn exactly why a species cannot go beyond certain bounds. People constantly say ID needs to do its own research and blah blah, but the results of the world's research are public domain, and I certainly note the frequency with which UD finds new little aspects of some article that seem promising toward an ID perspective. The main difference between ID and NDE isn't the research, but how the research is interpreted. However, it is no doubt true that from an ID perspective junk DNA would not have been as easily dismissed, and I remember thinking years ago when I heard about it, "that can't be right." If more researchers had an ID mindset, it would from time to time cause them to interpret or react differently.

4. I certainly refuse to agree to omit any references to the inadequacies of nde. That just won't fly. If a theory is inadequate, then it's inadequate. Whether or not you happen to have a well-thought out alternative is just irrelevant. When you notice a problem in your theorems, you go to work trying to fix it. Nor will I apologize for my incredulity.

5. Yes, I update and discard ideas all the time and plan to continue. It wouldn't bother me in the least if random processes were capable of generating life forms. I just don't think they are.  Now, how much would it bother you to discard NDE? Honestly now.

The bolded part of Darwin's paragraph are quite Lamarkian! But that's not to criticize. Lamarkian ideas seem quite intuitive to me, and after all he was working with what he had.

Now, I have read probably 8 or 10 books and found their arguments persuasive. You people should be well aware of them. Not to mention articles on the net. I have especially enjoyed the refutations and answers by the authors of works, since I get to see their works attacked and defended. It doesn't matter much, though, because as someone here said, they didn't find Darwin's Black Box impressive, and I did. I think Demski won the flagellum debate hands down. I think Berlinski won the fish eyes papers debate as well. I just don't find the NDE arguments persuasive. I find them shallow. I read Mike Gene's 5-part essay on the flagellum, including its assembly, and I plead incredulity. No way that could arise by random processes. The arguments against RM+NS are just too good.

Also, I am quite sure that evolution proceeds by a saltational route.

Someone mentioned dating methods. Isn't that mostly for YECers? I think the human race is far, far older than 100,000 years. I have no idea how old. I don't know how old the universe is, or whether some sort of memory pattern from prior universes could be impressed upon it. I don't see how, but I'd like to think so. Now that would be evolution!

I deeply believe and hope in evolution. I like to think of the universe as on a trajectory of becoming, with many planets full of life forms. What I take issue with, the rock bottom that I am certain of, is that NDE is on an absurdly wrong path, in supposing that the mechanism of evo is mutations of the genome. Mutations of the genome is not a positive. Nor is it adequate. Yeah, yeah, I know about transpositions and duplications and deletions and cooption.

I don't know how life evolved, nor does anyone. It stumps me. It may not even have evolved here on our planet, which means we wouldn't even have accurate clues. But let's not think about that.

I consider the mind of God responsible for it ultimately, but not necessarily in a personal God kind of way. Maybe DNA itself is an immortal or semi-immortal life-spirit that works from within. Think about it. From the first DNA to now, no such thing as death. It just goes on and on. Maybe there are platonic patterns that forms get kind of 'pulled' into conformity with.

What the theory of evolution needs is a mechanism. That's the problem. No mechanism to account for what we see. But there is progress. People are looking at emergent properties, and self-organizing properties. I don't think that's enough, but it's a big help.

You guys really ought to read Denton. He is looking hard at understanding evolution from a whole cosmic point of view, and he believes that life forms evolve as a result of intrinsic properties of matter and physics, at least in part. Very teleological but very naturalistic and nonDarwinian. There is nothing in his views that ought to be repugnant to any but the most hard boiled atheist or Biblical literalist. (Even Dawkins really only dislikes the stupidities of religions and what gets done in its name.)

One thing Denton has explained that goes along with my own approach is how all-of-a-piece this whole universe is. While there is a qualitative gap between animate and inanimate objects, nonetheless, living things are quite firmly nestled in the physical laws that surround them. The universe, its laws, and its elements are the supporting structure for life forms. I don't know if there is a better synopsis of the amazing level of fine tuning that exists than Nature's Destiny. The first few chapters are a little dry, but powerfully important.

If there is anyone on this whole playing field who can be a mediator and facilitator of salvaging evolution theory it is Denton. I want him knighted. You guys cling to random mutation because it's all you've got but it's less than nothing.

Here's a Denton quote:

Quote
A fascinating aspect of the folds, which we first pointed out in our papers, is the way adaptations are in every case the secondary modification of a primary natural form. I am now quite sure that the discovery that the protein folds are natural forms is only the beginning of what may turn out to be a major Platonic revision of biology, and an eventual relocation of biological order away from genes and mechanism and back into nature- where it resided before the Darwinian revolution.


I find the information arguments compelling, and here is a little snip from scordova:
Quote
But I don’t think we have even touched the tip of the iceberg. One simple example. At first we observed the translation of DNA into a protein, kind of a nice sequential, start-to-finish read and write. Apparently no big deal. Then we saw that in some cases that the same strand of DNA could be tranlated backward into yet another meaningful protein. Then we saw the same process with frame shifting!!!

The level and compactness of information is astounding. Even today we know there exists not just one layer of coding but layers and layers and layers. I seem to recall Sanford saying it appears that not just one level of coding exists for DNA but maybe 12 have been so far discovered.


What I'd like to see is some good refutations of Denton's book. Unfortunately, what the promoters of the book being shown at the top of this forum page had to say made me roll my eyes, and the one negative review was idiotic as well.

By the way, Febble did a bangup job of stating why she thinks natural selection is capable of generating IC systems. I just did not think her arguments were compelling enough.

Alright here's another prediction: You can have your evolution, but you gotta change the package. A lot. I mean, look at it this way. The knowledge of the cell and of genetics in Darwin's day was nil, and shortly thereafter we had Mendel. Soon as the evo's got over that shock, they incorporated it, and it was the only game in town and they've been running with it ever since. RANDOM MUTATION HAS GOT TO GO. I'M BEING YOUR FRIEND HERE!

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,20:02   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 23 2007,20:50)
When I unsubbed from his stupid-ass list, he added me again, and then, for some reason that I never figured out, actually made me a **co-moderator** of his list ("to encourage you to stay", he told me).

I promptly put his entire list on "moderated" status so no one could post, and deleted his entire archives.

After that, he never tried to sub me again.

That guy sounds as tardalicious as DaveTard.  And I would know, I've got the avatard to prove it.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,20:17   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,21:02)
1. I think GCT may have a personality disorder. Of course bringing up previous words is fine, but it was an endless morass. It gets hard to keep up the sense of the back and forth remarks when the conversation takes place with 9 people simultaneously, and everything gets misinterpreted again and again. And always petty stuff.

I'm sorry that you find intellectual honest to be "petty stuff."  It does explain a lot, however.

Quote
2. The theory of ID states that certain features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design.


That's not a scientific theory.  Try again.  Oh wait, I think we've already had this dance.

Quote
4. I certainly refuse to agree to omit any references to the inadequacies of nde. That just won't fly. If a theory is inadequate, then it's inadequate. Whether or not you happen to have a well-thought out alternative is just irrelevant. When you notice a problem in your theorems, you go to work trying to fix it. Nor will I apologize for my incredulity.


And you are still too stupid to realize that any problems with NDE do not represent support for ID.  But, that's already been pointed out to you.

Quote
5. Yes, I update and discard ideas all the time and plan to continue. It wouldn't bother me in the least if random processes were capable of generating life forms. I just don't think they are.  Now, how much would it bother you to discard NDE? Honestly now.


First, what a laugher.  Second, it would bother me greatly to discard NDE for "goddidit".  If the science were to go away from NDE, so be it, but I will not abandon something that has literally mountains of evidence on your say-so.

Quote
I think Demski won the flagellum debate hands down. I think Berlinski won the fish eyes papers debate as well.


Bwaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Quote
I just don't find the NDE arguments persuasive. I find them shallow. I read Mike Gene's 5-part essay on the flagellum, including its assembly, and I plead incredulity. No way that could arise by random processes. The arguments against RM+NS are just too good.


Bwaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha....Yeah, that's some great evidence for ID you got there.  "Um, I don't believe in evolution, so ID is right."

Quote
What I take issue with, the rock bottom that I am certain of, is that NDE is on an absurdly wrong path, in supposing that the mechanism of evo is mutations of the genome. Mutations of the genome is not a positive. Nor is it adequate. Yeah, yeah, I know about transpositions and duplications and deletions and cooption.


Don't let things like facts and actual scientific research get in your way.

Quote
I don't know how life evolved, nor does anyone.


Just because you are ignorant doesn't mean everyone else is.  There's quite a large volume of literature on how evolution works, and we know quite a bit more than you think.

Quote
Alright here's another prediction: You can have your evolution, but you gotta change the package. A lot. I mean, look at it this way. The knowledge of the cell and of genetics in Darwin's day was nil, and shortly thereafter we had Mendel. Soon as the evo's got over that shock, they incorporated it, and it was the only game in town and they've been running with it ever since. RANDOM MUTATION HAS GOT TO GO. I'M BEING YOUR FRIEND HERE!


Once again, don't let facts get in your way.  You're right, because you have that personal connection with god and all us atheist plebes should be kissing your feet and learning from your anti-intellectual, anti-scholastic, incredulous ways.

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1014
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,20:22   

Quote
It is surely a waste of time to even try to reason with people like this bunch here.

I am disgusted. What a lot of pent up rage.


Oh that's it, is it?  I thought you just wrote a bunch of prejudiced nonsense that you picked up from a bunch of lying perverts, and were unable to back up any of your claims.  Come to think of it, I still do, useless lying moron.

There is some anger at the endless lies and utter lack of evidence evinced by a gutless ignoramus such as yourself.  But you're too much a person of ressentiment to recognize that you appall us much more than you anger us, and we quite deliberately call you a mindless liar because that is all that the evidence coming from your posts soundly indicates.  You deserve every bit of contempt that you receive, for you want simply to win some "moral victory" through name-calling and "shock" at the response to your pathetic display of cluelessness mixed with a profound ignorance, and you wish to be relieved from all responsibility for your "factual statements".

Glen D

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,20:30   

For the record, here's the old thread that Avo had:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....tionist

There are a lot of posts, and many are lengthy, but it's a good look at the evasions and lies of Avo, as documented by a few people.

Edit:  Here's a good, juicy quote from the first page.

Quote
Well, I am pretty satisfied based on the books and articles I have read that there isn't much evidence for Darwinism, and that the IDists are more scientific than the Darwinists because the IDists are into detail. It's all about Reality with a capital R and reality is all about detail.  What's more, I see no possibility of a universe without God. None at all.


Anything more need be said?

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1014
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,20:31   

Quote
The theory of ID states that certain features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design.


That's what is properly called an evidence-free prejudice.  You simply avoid all normal predictions respecting "design" because you, or at least your idiot leaders, know that none of the predictions of design are borne out by the evidence.

As usual, the rest of your post only shows that you have no regard for the proper use of evidence, and no indication that you have ever learned any science, rules of evidence, or how to decide a perceptual matter competently.  

Yet we're supposed to respect your ignorance and treat you like your fellow clueless dolts do.  Sorry, that would be as intellectually dishonest on our part as your claims are intellectually dishonest anywhere near any empirical affairs.

Glen D

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,20:59   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,16:22)
Last but not least, here is an example of just one uncalled for remark that shows relentless negativity and prejudice aforehand:
   
Quote
I also noticed it went unrefuted (as should be).
Has it occurred to anyone here that I've spent hours on this, and that I have not yet even gotten to the real questions, and furthermore, why in the world would I refute his discussion about the meaning of thermodynamics? There was not anything to refute.

Avocationist,
I didn't mean for you to refute SLoT.  :(

I did ask a couple questions though.
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=48179

You started this with a statement about Entropy...  
Quote
I simply can't keep from musing philosophically. It ties everything together for me. Perhaps you should explain about those other laws around it, in what way am I ignoring them. I do think of entropy as a disorganizing force, basically things break down into their simpler and simpler components. Is that wrong?


I answered your question to show you where I thought you went wrong...  
Quote
You can muse on disorganizing (and/or organizing) forces all you want, but when you invoke Entropy as one of these forces I'm calling foul.
...
If you want to use Entropy to describe your disorganizing force then I'll have to ask you for the transposition formulaes your using for ALL the balance equations.


Now your saying there was nothing to refute in my message?
You agree with me fully?
Are you going to reframe your statements so that Entropy, or SLoT is never used in your statements about disorganizing and organizing forces?

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,22:23   

Your theory is that some things are best explained by your theory?  Um...

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,22:37   

> Avocation writes:
> I simply can't keep from musing philosophically.


Which, I suppose, just goes to prove that Marx was correct when he wrote:

"Philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relationship to one another as masturbation and sexual intercourse."


Certainly I've never seen a more prolific mental masturbator than Avo.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,22:40   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,20:02)
I just did not think her arguments were compelling enough.

And, uh, we should give a flying #### what you think because . . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Serendipity



Posts: 28
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,23:41   

Quote (Mike PSS @ Jan. 23 2007,20:59)

Hello, Avocationist.

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,16:22)
Last but not least, here is an example of just one uncalled for remark that shows relentless negativity and prejudice aforehand:
   
Quote
I also noticed it went unrefuted (as should be).
Has it occurred to anyone here that I've spent hours on this, and that I have not yet even gotten to the real questions, and furthermore, why in the world would I refute his discussion about the meaning of thermodynamics? There was not anything to refute.


Entropy, dear - a state variable of thermodynamics. There is nothing to refute - that is why I said "as should be". What Mike wrote in the other thread was accurate. It was not a misrepresentation nor a restating of what entropy *could be*. So of course you had NOTHING to refute. That was the point of my statement. You would actually have to have MORE than a few hours knowledge of thermodynamics.

Serendipity.

--------------
Without question or false modesty, no success has owed more to serendipity than ours. (Fischer)

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,23:48   

My dictionary has about 5 definitions of entropy, including the general winding down of the universe. This is a common type of usage. What was wrong with my using it?

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,00:36   

By the common view of the SLOT, I assume you mean the general:
"Things don't go from disorder to order"

The second law in general is:
"A closed system with a specific internal energy will tend to relax (each subsystem will approach the average internal energy) and will occupy the most probable state."

Entropy itself is a function of the internal energy of the system, the volume the system occupies, and the number of particles in the system. It's a dimensionless number, it has no units (like meters, or degrees Celsius).

Let's say system A has 6 possible states, system B has 10, possible states, then there are 60 (6x10) possible states for the two together, AB, easy enough.

The entropy of a system is the natural logarithm of the number of states. It turns the total states from a multiplicative quantity (6x10) into an additive quanitity ( ln(6x10) = ln(6)+ln(10) ). The total number of states can be calculated from classical and quantum mechanics. I won't go into the details here (relates to something called phase volume), since it doesn't have much bearing on the point I'm trying to make.

The second law says that the number of states in A will increase and the number of states in B will decrease until they come to an equal quanitity (6->8  10->8). The total number of states then becomes (8x8) = 64, thus the total entropy will then go from ln( 60 ) to ln ( 64 ). Notice that the entropy of B actually decreases in the process, from ln(10) ->ln(8), which you might think violates the second law, but since B is not in thermal equilibrium with A, this is perfectly legal.

edit - added phase volume info

edit - removed old tag

  
k.e.



Posts: 40
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,00:37   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,23:48)
My dictionary has about 5 definitions of entropy, including the general winding down of the universe. This is a common type of usage. What was wrong with my using it?

Without understanding the scientific method, explosive logic, or having completed (and demonstrated an understanding) a formal course in one of the science disciplines that uses entropy as a physical measure or by observing and confirming that quantity, you may as well compete in the 'Tour de France' by correspondence.....using a dictionary instead of a bike.



I'm sorry, but most if not all of the creationists I have come across have such a poor understanding of the difference between cold hard facts and fiction that simplest tests for either  go in one ear and out the other. Language for them is just a means for propaganda not a method to communicate an understanding of objective reality.

Many scientists simply do not grasp that creationists are completely unaware of the process or the simplest rules for doing actual science. And make the mistake that creationists, due to their pathological inability to distinguish between a logical truth and untruth as a result of living in a magical reality where fiction IS fact, could benefit from a logical explanation of how scientific conclusions are made. Creationists don't even know the first move in a game they don't understand the rules of.

The one thing creationists all have in common is the ability to sound very convincing at making fiction facts or what belongs to Caesar, God's and vice versa.

Avo. I suggest you devise an experiment to test for g$d then sit back and wait, when you get the results and you don't like them ......wait some more.

Just for the excercise how would you test for g$d?

I can give you plenty of examples if you want.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,00:44   

Thank you, Creekybelly,

Your post was informative, and I had a couple of questions, but I will not discuss it here.

Does this mean I am banned from Paley's thread?

  
k.e.



Posts: 40
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,01:01   

Oh what a shame. (snicker)

So that means you are not going to convince a bunch of heathens here the error of our wicked wicked ways and get a free ticket into heaven?

Oh yeah of little faith.


Here Avo. try the Oliver Sacks g$d test.

Quote
Boarding school cured Oliver of religious belief. As a test of God's power, he planted two rows of radishes, and prayed for God to blast one and make the other flourish. When they grew up identically, he was confirmed in his unbelief and abandonment. School, he says, affected his capacity for bonding, belief and belonging. "On the other hand, there can be too much belonging and belief - look at present-day America, with its religious fanaticism."

from here:-
Seeing double

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,01:07   

Personally, I think the SLOT discussion would be better suited on this thread, but I don't think you're forced to post only here. The LUCA thread seems to have deteriorated into GoP and his counterparts bumping it every once in a while, and I think it helps focus the discussion if we're all on the same page, literally. Mike probably has more information on the chemical aspects of Entropy, and I believe there was an abiogenesis thread discussing chemical potentials.
Personally, I'm curious in what manner you're interested in applying the 2nd law. Is it abiogenesis, or evolution, or genetic information, or even something as general as having a universe that isn't in thermal equilibrium?

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,02:20   

Quote

Wesley,

I'm going thru the list you linked, and some display bad behavior, but some are not that unreasonable. There is some sense in comparing this situation to other political situations that have occurred. There WAS a time when Darwin's new theory was utilized by certain groups to promote eugenics. The theory DOES lend itself to that. It's a sensitive spot and an historical mistake for which modern theorists should not be fried, it's just a part of history. And, equally, religions have used scripture to excuse their bad acts, so it is not unique to NDE.

I'm angry with Jonathan Wells because I bought his book a few years ago (before I ever heard the term ID) and he promised in his book cover that he was completely secular, and had accepted evolution at least in high school and I think early college. However, it turns out he was a man on a mission from the beginning. It is true that I like his book and that he kept religion out of it, but I don't appreciate being lied to. I did say that once on UD, and got no comment. At least I didn't get banned!

But some of the comparisons there are not quite what you make out. Johnson (he's a fundie, his kind worry me) did not really compare Gould to Gorbachev, but rather he compared their two situations, which is not the same thing.

Ditto Dembski comparison of Darwinisn and Soviet regime. There IS a hegemony, and it would be a loss/disruption to change it.


What example had anything to do with Darwin's ideas being misused?

This one had Hartwig comparing the tactics of "Darwinists" to Nazi occupiers.

Meyer's fake German accent wasn't a disquisition on analogies of ideas.

Wells on Soviet collapse wasn't discussing the ideas, but rather invoking the rapidity of the Soviet collapse.

Johnson compares Gould to Gorbachev. Again, no discussion of the ideas. Is this really not a comparison: "Gould, like Gorbachev, deserves immense credit for bringing glasnost to a closed society of dogmatists. And, like Gorbachev, he lives on as a sad reminder of what happens to those who lack the nerve to make a clean break with a dying theory." ?

Dembski compares "Darwinism" to the Soviet empire. No discussion of the ideas again. The bit about "hegemony" doesn't provide an excuse for Dembski's bad rhetorical behavior here.

Johnson compares "methodological naturalism" to the Soviet collapse. MN doesn't even have the purported link to bad systems of government as asserted for "Darwinism".

Johnson compares "Darwinism" to apparent impregnability of the Soviet empire. No discussion of the ideas.

Calvert, "naturalism", Nazis, and KCFS. While Calvert does invoke the "historical link" idea, that isn't what his invidious comparison of KCFS and Nazis is about; that is about tactics.

Dembski compares ID critics to Napoleon. Surely you aren't suggesting that Napoleon was motivated by "Darwinism"?

Dembski compares ID critics to McCarthyites. McCarthyism is not seriously attributed to the influence of "Darwinism" by anyone.

Dembski calls Forrest a "leftist". This was about an asserted propensity to "diatribe", not about the history of ideas.

Johnson compares "Darwinists" to Napoleon's Army. Once again, the historical link angle is unavailable as a dodge.

Calvert compares "Naturalists" to Nazi and Soviet regimes, but on tactics, not the historical link assertion.

OK, I've run out of steam to individually characterize every item in the thread, but the point is that the claimed excuse of discussing "Darwinism"'s purported cultural link to various bad forms of government simply is not the issue in the listed examples. Even in the one item that did include some mention of a historical link, the actual invidious comparison was actually based on supposed similarities of tactics. So I am going to consider Avocationist's claim to be unsubstantiated unless and until a specific example is identified and shown to actually meet the circumstances of the excuse.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,03:48   

Hi Avocationist,

A while back you said:

Quote
Hello Louis,

Yes, you lead the pack. No I am not thin-skinned and I rarely get annoyed in real life or on line. You have called me a liar, you have called me loathsome, and a subverter of science. I happen to have a tremendous amount of love for science, and respect.


I hate to trouble you with so petty a thing as reality, but if you would be so kind could you please point to where I have actually said that you are a liar, loathsome and a subverter of science. Links, quotes, permalinks will do. Just provide the actual evidence that I actually said this please.

Thanks very much

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,03:56   

Quote
The theory of ID states that certain features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design.
In scientific terms that's a conjecture or a hypothesis at best. The 'theory of intelligent design' needs to include what the designer did, and in more detail than 'he designed things somehow'. For example it needs to include whether evolution was frontloaded at some point, or if the designer intervened whenever anything needed doing. It needs to take a position one way or the other on common descent, and most likely the age of the earth. If the earth is young it needs to explain how x number of kinds could evolve into x number of species in a few thousand years. If life was frontloaded it needs to explain how the unused information was not degraded by mutation, and in more detail than something like 'some kind of fantastic error correction mechanism'.

Most importantly this theory needs to make predictions, and by predictions I mean the outcome of future investigations, not what will happen in evolution in the future. These also can't be incredibly vague, ('layers of information';), something we already know, or something that was predicted years ago based on evolution (the whole silent mutations can affect protein function thing, IC).

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,05:05   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,23:48)
My dictionary has about 5 definitions of entropy, including the general winding down of the universe. This is a common type of usage. What was wrong with my using it?

The big problem with your use of entropy, is that you wish to refer to some properties of entropy in a closed system.  the Earth is not a closed system, it has the sun pumping in loads of energy 24hours a day, and hence the properties of entropy in a closed system don't apply...

  
Serendipity



Posts: 28
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,05:26   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,23:48)

Quote
My dictionary has about 5 definitions of entropy, including the general winding down of the universe. This is a common type of usage. What was wrong with my using it?


So you know the significant difference between mechanical, chemical, statistical, quantum, informational entropy (ect)? Entropy is defined by its equation. It is a quantitative measure of a system based on the probability of a set of results <insert equations here>. Entropy IS a mathematical variable, often misused based on semantical definitions (usually metaphorical) to serve purposes it was never designed to serve. It's not rocket science - though rocket science employs it.

Serendipity.

--------------
Without question or false modesty, no success has owed more to serendipity than ours. (Fischer)

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,05:41   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,20:02)
What the theory of evolution needs is a mechanism. That's the problem. No mechanism to account for what we see. But there is progress. People are looking at emergent properties, and self-organizing properties. I don't think that's enough, but it's a big help.

Look, Avocationist, I don't know if you realise it, but this statement alone just goes to show how ignorant you are about evolution as a theory.  You need to learn a bit about it before you try to criticise it - seriously!

To help you on your way,  here's a little primer on the mechanisms involved in evolution:

1) Random mutation: Check!  Random mutation has been observed both in the lab, and in the wild.  It happens, it's a fact.  Also note that in sexual species, the sexual recombination of genes from parents to offspring can bring in a far wider range of gene combinations far faster than just random mutation alone (hence life's apparent preference for sexual reproduction - but I digress)

2) Inheritence of traits: Check!  Since the discovery of DNA, we now understand how genetic information is passed from one generation to the next.  No mystery there.

3) Natural Selection: Check! That less fit organisms have less success in reproducing is a widely observed phenomenon.

This is all that's needed for evolution to work, and each of these mechanisms has been observed, both in the lab, and in the wild.

Now, you are probably about to object that that doesn't explain how useful new traits can arise out of random mutation, as if by magic.  Again, there's no secret - if you try enough combinations, you're going to hit on the solution to the problem.  Genetic algorithms, such as evolution, are just an optimisation algorithm.  You can read up on the theory of optimisation algorithms in any good computer science textbook.  Again, it's all proven stuff.

If you're still not convinced, we can show that all of this stuff actually works in the real world, by watching bacteria develop resistence to drugs.  We see the bacteria develop new traits that protect them from the drugs, with no detectable outside interference.

So anyway, back to the point.  Your claim that there is no mechanism for evolution is just plain false.  You need to do a bit of research before shooting your mouth off, because you just make yourself look like a goose.

  
Serendipity



Posts: 28
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,05:42   

Quote (creeky belly @ Jan. 24 2007,00:36)

Hello, Belleh!

Quote
The entropy of a system is the natural logarithm of the number of states. It turns the total states from a multiplicative quantity (6x10) into an additive quanitity ( ln(6x10) = ln(6)+ln(10) ). The total number of states can be calculated from classical and quantum mechanics. I won't go into the details here (relates to something called phase volume), since it doesn't have much bearing on the point I'm trying to make.


Or V[P]= -logbP measuring the values of two probable space.

Quote
which you might think violates the second law, but since B is not in thermal equilibrium with A, this is perfectly legal.


"Violation" is easily misused (often by those who are using it for the purpose it was never designed for). An increased amount of disorder would render a low entropic reading. Lesser equilibrium, low entropy. Less complex, higher entropy.

Serendipity.

PS: Say hi to Harps for me ;)

--------------
Without question or false modesty, no success has owed more to serendipity than ours. (Fischer)

  
Cedric Katesby



Posts: 55
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,05:46   

I said...                        
Quote
I am only interested in your scientific version of ID.

If you told somebody at a party that you supported ID and you wanted to sate their curiosity then how would you make a simple, concise scientific argument for ID in sixty seconds/two minutes/ whatever?

What Advocationist gave me in reply was...                        
Quote
The theory of ID states that certain features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design.

Advocationist, I'm not sure that we understand each other.  Allow me to rephrase my request.
I am not interested in the "theory" of ID as it is described in some book somewhere.  If I wanted to know what " The theory of ID states..." then I could just look it up on the Internet and deal with the competing versions out there.
I am interested in your scientific argument for ID.
Your argument.
Your understanding of ID.
Yours.
Advocationist's personal (in her own words and thought processes) understanding of a scientific argument for ID.
Just yours!!
Yours!!!
If you want to borrow definitions and terms from other sources to help you phrase your thoughts, by all means go ahead.  If you want to hitch your wagon to some classic argument for ID, then by all means do so.  But attach yourself to such an argument because you FULLY UNDERSTAND it and LIKE it and AGREE with it.
Be prepared to defend it.  No wriggling around.
No abandoning ship if and when people point out potential flaws in your version (adopted or otherwise) of a scientific argument for ID.
Oh, and when I asked you to pretend you were at a party and making an argument for ID, I was (foolishly?) hoping for a little substance in your opening statement.
Instead I get a brusque one-liner that could fit on a fortune cookie. :(  
Something of a letdown.
How about fleshing out your argument a little?
Perhaps a brief mention on the mechanics of the ID theory?
Maybe you could show how ID could be falsified?
Or a layman's example of how ID works in the real world?
Just suggestions, of course.
It's your argument, so you get to decide how to present it.
Yet if anybody was going to make a scientific argument about any Theory at all (Plate Tectonics, Germ Theory, etc) then they would probably start there.
Just a couple of paragraphs written in clear, easy-to-follow terms that you would perhaps use at a party somewhere.
Your scientific argument for ID, please.
(waits patiently) :)

  
don_quixote



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,07:06   

{at a party}

Me: So, the theory of I.D., eh? What do you mean by that?

Avo: The theory of ID states that certain features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design.

Me: Fascinating! Which ones? And why?

......

come on Avo, keep me interested and I might buy you a drink !;)

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,07:19   

Judging by current behaviour I reckon that I can confidently say that I will buy everyone at ATBC a drink* if we get a coherent expression of Avocationist's ideas anout ID.

Louis

*Subject to availablity ;)

--------------
Bye.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,07:28   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 24 2007,07:19)
Judging by current behaviour I reckon that I can confidently say that I will buy everyone at ATBC a drink* if we get a coherent expression of Avocationist's ideas anout ID.

Alas, Avo has no idea, literally not a clue, what ID is or what it is all about.  She seems to think it somehow has something to do with her idiotic New Age touchy-feelie "look at my aura" crapola.

That's why the IDers think she is just as nutty as we do.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Serendipity



Posts: 28
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,08:31   

The Intelligent Design Movement is based largely upon its promoters who use their abilities to construct an argument which appears to be full-proof and simplistic that it gives those who adopt it the misconception that it must be factual.

However, the argument is based upon the world-view of the promoter with the assumption that others will share that world-view. However that world-view does not correspond with naturalism that applies science. Alas, this does not stop ID'ers from adopting a naturalistic approach to try and support a supernatural proposition.

Dembski's bacterial flagellum is a prime example. Applying his specified complexity equation of a=10^-150; .. X is complex if P(X)<a [ Dembski, W. (2001). No Free Lunch. USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc. pp. 18-22. ] Dembski argues this stochastic formalism (nondeterminism) equation where X is complex based on naturalistic probability cannot logically comply with Darwinism mechanisms. However he's assuming that all naturalistic processes are accounted for. I could logically apply Godel to his system of axioms rendering it null and void but then thats just too easy. ID never meant for this to be easy - to look easy, sure - but to be easy, not. Which leads to my point: applying an equation based on perceived complexity (negating that he redefines complexity itself) Dembski is able to offer what appears to be a valid argument that complex systems appear not to be accounted for using standard mechanisms. However, what he is doing is changing the structure of those standard mechanisms to fit his equation.

What this inevitably does is woo the less prudent and less skeptical into believing that the argument is valid (lest I again refer to Godel). What this inevitably does is create the AFDave's and Avocationists into supporting half cocked ideas because "it looked good in print". It supported their paradigm therefore its worthy of being accepted - yet unworthy of being fully scrutinised.

Now before I am accused of being a bully and allowing for others to feel victimised, I will state this for ID.

If an intelligent designer does exist it is possibility within the best interest of humanity to have this substantiated. It is in the best interest of humanity because it allows for a sense of immortality, death merely become a transitional process as opposed to a conclusion of a process. Therefore if a logical argument can be given for intelligent design then in all likelihood it will be accepted. But until then, I am subjected to mediocre philosophers with a simpletons grasp of science attempting to posit rigmorale to a person who has studied indepth - and I find that insulting.

Serendipity.

--------------
Without question or false modesty, no success has owed more to serendipity than ours. (Fischer)

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,10:17   

Louis,

Perhaps this post contributed in some way to Avocationist's notions about you?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,10:26   

Quote
Your theory is that some things are best explained by your theory?  Um...
heh heh.

It reminds me of Avo's previous run here at AtBC. When asked for predictions that ID could make, her response was (paraphrasing here; I don't have time to look up the original):

"I predict that future experiments will validate ID"

Don't quit your day job, Avo. I don't think this science thing is going to work out for you.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,10:27   

Louis,

Shhhhhhh behave. It'll think we're fundamentalists. Oh wait. It already does. Corn's high this yeeeah.

{spits baccy}
Personally I curious as to why when one troll disappears we get another right on its heels.

Some people, no names mentioned, no fingers pointed, use the internet as a sheild between themselves and the deep loathfulness of their behaviour.

All we are going to get from him/her/it is a lot of sanctimonious abuse, claims of "independent thinking" (when what Avocationist is doing is manifestly neither independent or thinking), a large dose of intellectual dishonesty all coupled with the usual hand waving, lies, lack of understanding and bullshit.

Nothing to commend, I just don't like liars. Especially liars who are trying to subvert science.


Now, again, I dropped by to commiserate a little because of the banning business at UD, which I think I have made pretty clear I dislike. I got jumped by Lenny with "Aha! Here's a creationist - so explain to me creationist, why they wrote what they did in the wedge document. I'll explain Lenny, when you personally account for the eugenics movement as it abuse Darwin's theory in the 1930s - 1950s in this country and Europe, OK?

I am going to make individual assignments to the people here.

1. Let me know why you disagree with Mike Gene's essay on the flagellum, and give some good arguments about how its assembly process evolved.

2. I want thoughtful critiques of separate chapters of Denton's book, Evolution in crisis.

3. Where did Berlinski go wrong in his assessment of the Nilsson-Pelger paper?

4. A full critique of Dembski's response to The Flagellum Unspun.

And I expect it all back by this evening, or I'll start questioning your motives, your character, and your sanity.

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,10:44   

Quote
The theory of ID states that certain features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design.

Pathetic.  How about,            
Quote
The theory of gravity states that the tendency of objects to be attracted toward one another is best explained as being the result of gravity.

There.  I've explained nothing, I've claimed nothing, and no matter what experimental result you get, I can always say, "well, that's gravity at work."  

Or maybe
 
Quote
The theory of evolution states that certain features of biological organisms are best explained as being the result of evolution.

And it must be true, because we've proven Lamarckianism to be incorrect!  Nothing wrong with assuming there are only two possible choices, is there?

If that was all evolutionists had to offer we'd be laughed out of the universities.  Perhaps you should consider why your ideas are so poorly received by virtually everyone who knows anything about biology.  It's not them, it's you.

Go back to church; you obviously have nothing to offer to science or discussions of science, or any intention of doing so.  That you cannot resist manufacturing bogus sciencey support for your superstitious beliefs isn't science's problem; it's yours.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
don_quixote



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,10:54   

Sheesh, I only asked you to expand your theory a bit because I was interested in hearing more.

Why can't you tell me which "features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design", and why?

That is what you state your theory of I.D. to be, isn't it?

What would you think of someone who said they believed in the veracity of a scientific theory, but then couldn't tell you anything more about it?

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,11:00   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,11:27)
4. A full critique of Dembski's response to The Flagellum Unspun.

I can get you started on this one right now.  Dembski asks:
Quote
Why is intelligent design held to such a high standard when that standard is absent from the rest of the empirical sciences (nowhere else in the natural sciences is strict logical possibility/impossibility enforced, not even with the best established physical laws like the first and second laws of thermodynamics)?


His assumption that the theory of evolution is not held to "strict logical possibility/impossibility" is incorrect.  He is arguing, in effect, that evolution is not falsifiable.  In reality, there are many ways to test the falsifiability of the ToE.  And we do not think it is too much to ask the same of ID, if it is to be accepted as a scientific hypothesis.

So, what hypothetical tests would you like to present for ID?

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,11:04   

Avo/Wes

AH the old "reading for comprehension" problem. Et tu it would appear Wesley.

1) The "Someone no names mentioned" etc is GoP, not Avocationist. This is easily understandable from something we grown ups call "the context". It's also why I seriously dislike separating one post (or quote or whatever) from the context if that context forms part of an ongoing conversation. I trust GoP as far as I could spit a solid metric tonne of baccy, and certainly don't think it beyond him to fake multiple posting personalities for the purpose of trolling. He's not only already done it but already ADMITTED it. Forgive me for being the only one to think this loathsome. Tchoh, the standards of the youth of today ;)

If Avocationist is not a troll, and instead a sincere and interested conversationalist then I 100% totally retract my description of him/her/it as a troll and apologise unreservedly. In this instance I was wrong, obviously dependant on the above being the case. Do I need to explain the use of the conditional in the above?

2) The thing I was describing as loathsome was the behaviour of people who do such trolling, not Avocationist. A relatively simple reading of the sentence reveals that. Nowhere was a phrase that could in any reasonable sense be parsed as "Avocationist is loathsome".

3) Let's see what I actually wrote:

Quote
P.S. Serendipity, based on experience of Avocationist thus far, no we are not going to see any evidence of ID. All we are going to get from him/her/it is a lot of sanctimonious abuse, claims of "independent thinking" (when what Avocationist is doing is manifestly neither independent or thinking), a large dose of intellectual dishonesty all coupled with the usual hand waving, lies, lack of understanding and bullshit. Of course I am extremely happy to be proven wrong about this (those like Avocationist never get this part) but what proving me wrong requires is actually knowing what they are talking about and being intellectually deft and honest enough to form a coherent argument (another thing they don't get). Based on 14/15 years of dealing with creationists on a nearly daily basis, my bet would not be an optimistic one. I live in hope of being proven wrong about that though, it did happen a couple of times, less than 1% of the total though. Oh well.


Bolding mine. Future tense people, future tense. Not "Avocationist is a liar", not "Avocationist is a subverter of science". This is a prediction based on current behaviour, NOT an accustation. Colour me amazed that, uncharitable though it is, intelligent people can't tell the difference.

Amazingly enough although I am all for outreach, education, promoting science (I actually do this moderately successfully in my spare time as it happens) I am not a massive fan of calling shit shinola or vice versa. Do you advocate hypocrisy in the face of unreason? I know I don't.

Oh and of course, my open and upfront admission that I am willing to be proven wrong on the basis of the evidence makes me the intolerant one, right? Told you that Avocationist wouldn't get it didn't I.

4) The "spits baccy" comment was about Avocationist's direct and unjustified leap for his/her/its high horse on being challenged or indeed spoken to in any way shape or form. It was a joke about the attitude of IDCists and their ilk to skeptics, the joke being that they accuse us of fundamentalism. Projection on their part, not denial on ours. The funny bit being that the "fundy persecution complex" emerges BEFORE the persecution, not after it. Anything that can then be interpreted as persecution (whether it is or not) is used as evidence. A point I think, Wesley, you've made yourself.

The second part of the joke regarding the poking stick was again, a joke about US, as it were. We the body skeptic/rationalist looking for a victim to poke. Not that a) we are so desirous, or b) we actually do this. It's a parody, a pastiche. Geddit?

5) The comment about commendation. Note Avo's snip from context. ####, note all lines snipped from ALL context. Context you will note that proves that the Wes/Avo interpretation is not the correct one. That comment is a reply to Serendipity commending my arguing with creationists for 14/15 years. I said that it doesn't deserve commendation of any kind (it doesn't) and commented that my motivation for doing this was because I don't like liars and people who are lying deliberately to subvert science.

This is the closest thing I can think of that Avo could take as directed at him/her/it. It isn't directed at him/her/it, but hey, what's a small matter of reality between friends? It is directed at the Hams, Hovinds etc of this world, people PROVEN to be dishonestly attempting to subvert science and shoehorn it into their own false beliefs. Sorry, should I equivocate about this to spare your blushes? Pardon me if I don;t think I should.

As can be told from following the CONTEXT of the conversation (yes I know all that tiresome reading, sorry) the comment is a general one. Part of a series of comments I have already openly expressed that I hope I am wrong about. PROVE ME WRONG, don't whine about it.

If this is the best "evidence" you can come up with, colour sincerely unimpressed.

Tell you what, if you aren't so quick on your leap for your high horse, I'll be less quick about my pessimism regarding your ability to hold a rational conversation. Sound fair?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Serendipity



Posts: 28
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,11:05   

Quote
I am going to make individual assignments to the people here.


You want them before or after you answer what has been asked of you since this thread began?

Quote
A full critique of Dembski's response to The Flagellum Unspun.


I gave a mathematical (albeit layman) critique of Dembski's usage of his own mathematical formula in application to the complexity of flagellum. Does it need to be expanded more for your benefit?

Quote
And I expect it all back by this evening, or I'll start questioning your motives, your character, and your sanity.


So far your persona has been the "victim" the "informed teacher" the "ordinary guy" now the "lawyer". Before you ask, this is what I have to deduce from clients everyday.

Motives: To get you to elaborate on Intelligent Design - why this thread was originally started.

Character: Totally emotive requirement - merely the topic is what is needed. Discussions can get lost in "how could you say that about me? What kind of beast are you?" diatribe. So it's actually NOT important unless it ADDS to the ORIGINAL discussion.

Sanity: A legal terminology which has no meaning to a discussion board.

So... moving right along.. what evidence is there for Intelligent Design?

Serendipity.

--------------
Without question or false modesty, no success has owed more to serendipity than ours. (Fischer)

  
JohnW



Posts: 2767
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,11:11   

Avocationist, I'd like to thank you for reducing the ID position to its essence.  If we strip away the obfuscation, wishful thinking and wilful attempts to mislead used by the likes of Behe, Dembski et al, it's always been driven by appeals to personal incredulity.  "But it just doesn't make sense!  Isn't it obvious that this couldn't have arisen without supernatural assistance?"

The natural world doesn't care whether its behaviour makes sense to you, or to anybody else.  It just keeps on doing what it's doing, without even pausing to consider whether you like it or not.  What's more, we know that many of its workings are completely contrary to common sense (relativity and quantum mechanics, for example).

If you don't like the theory of evolution, no-one is going to be impressed with the nasty taste in your mouth.  What's your evidence for not liking it?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,11:14   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 23 2007,15:22)
Lenny,

No I can't cite an example of a textbook. I'm not going to that level of research for every comment I make and I don't have any on hand.
your pathetic level of detail?

Quote
Back to Louis,

You just can't lump anyone who disagrees with neoDarwinism into a group whose ideas are no good. Life just isn't that simple. Science would NEVER progress if you and yours got your way!!!
Yes you can and yes it would. Would you care to deconstruct this comment with me?

Quote
I'm angry with Jonathan Wells because I bought his book a few years ago (before I ever heard the term ID) and he promised in his book cover that he was completely secular, and had accepted evolution at least in high school and I think early college. However, it turns out he was a man on a mission from the beginning. It is true that I like his book and that he kept religion out of it, but I don't appreciate being lied to.
Did you ever think that ... no, never mind.

Quote
Yes, I saw Febble post there, ...
Here is one thing she said: You guess at random, but when you get a correct answer for one slot, you get to keep it. You replicate what works, in other words. You don’t start from scratch each time.

That is a point of contention. How to keep answers which have no way of being correct until future answers arrive, such as with IC systems.
Also, I am pretty sure that she is twisting Dembski's words to give intelligence a meaning everyone knows he does not intend.
What meaning could he possibly have which isn't crystal clear? It's one of the two words in his "theory". You'd think hi definition would be pretty unambiguous. This is a weak reply.

Quote
BWE,
   
Quote
I second this. My pent up rage toward xians is in a pretty small pen and doesn't need much tending but I am mildly offended by a group making claims about god, heaven, morality and the like as if they know for sure.
Really? I wonder who said this:

Just when I think I've got ahold of a true idea, I later realize that we just have no way of knowing much of anything. Or maybe we do, but when we think we know, we often don't, and there isn't much of a way to tell that we're in an ignorant state of false ideas. If we're lucky, we figure it out after the fact.
Yes, I think there is an obvious need for God as an explanation for existence. There is no other explanation, although what the nature of this God might be is up for conjecture.
As to whether the universe has purpose, I tend to sort of think so, but we might be out of our ken.
Boy, so do I. It doesn't google well. What the Heck does it have to do with my statement? You are aware that if you hadn't recieved xian ideas from OTHER PEOPLE, you wouldn't have recieved them at all?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
don_quixote



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,11:22   

Quote (improvius @ Jan. 24 2007,11:00)
 
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,11:27)
4. A full critique of Dembski's response to The Flagellum Unspun.

I can get you started on this one right now.  Dembski asks:
   
Quote
Why is intelligent design held to such a high standard when that standard is absent from the rest of the empirical sciences (nowhere else in the natural sciences is strict logical possibility/impossibility enforced, not even with the best established physical laws like the first and second laws of thermodynamics)?


His assumption that the theory of evolution is not held to "strict logical possibility/impossibility" is incorrect.  He is arguing, in effect, that evolution is not falsifiable.  In reality, there are many ways to test the falsifiability of the ToE.  And we do not think it is too much to ask the same of ID, if it is to be accepted as a scientific hypothesis.

So, what hypothetical tests would you like to present for ID?

Ahh yes, falsification.

Avo, if (like Dembski) you don't understand this term, then you might be interested in reading this thread at richarddawkins.net, in which AFDave has the concept of falsifiability explained to him in several dozen ways. He still doesn't get it of course, but I'm sure you will, because you are brighter than him, right?

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,11:23   

Quote
Now, again, I dropped by to commiserate a little because of the banning business at UD, which I think I have made pretty clear I dislike. I got jumped by Lenny with "Aha! Here's a creationist - so explain to me creationist, why they wrote what they did in the wedge document. I'll explain Lenny, when you personally account for the eugenics movement as it abuse Darwin's theory in the 1930s - 1950s in this country and Europe, OK?

I am going to make individual assignments to the people here.

1. Let me know why you disagree with Mike Gene's essay on the flagellum, and give some good arguments about how its assembly process evolved.

2. I want thoughtful critiques of separate chapters of Denton's book, Evolution in crisis.

3. Where did Berlinski go wrong in his assessment of the Nilsson-Pelger paper?

4. A full critique of Dembski's response to The Flagellum Unspun.

And I expect it all back by this evening, or I'll start questioning your motives, your character, and your sanity.


Now THIS I like!

Ok then, I'll kick off with the easy one:

Eugenics. This falls foul of the "Is/Ought" fallacy (at least). Just because it is possible to envisage a scenario in which we could "improve" the human genome by weeding out "undesirables" doesn't we should do so. One should note the words "improve" and "undesirable" are in the case of eugenics carefully undefined, or at least defined in such a way to be consonant with preexisting prejudices. Even if they are rigourously defined then this still doesn't work. I can envisage a sceanrio in which pushing people out of windows is a good thing, this doesn't mean I should do so, nor does it reflect on the accuracy of gravitational physics at the time I have the idea!. Something being real does not equate to it being moral or a fortiori supportive of a moral action.

Ok so now what's left? Mike Gene, Dembski, Denton, and Berlinski. In one sentence: all arguments from personal incredulity wrapped up in the trappings of actual work. All logically fallacious, standard, creationist boilerplate in nice new shiny packages and as such ignorable. If you want the more detailed critique, you'll have to wait beyond this evening. Question my everything to your heart's content, after all I'm not the one who thinks that handwaving by self-confessedly biased individuals promoting a religious agenda (for the most part) constitutes a) positive evidence for anything, or b) a decent reason to abandon all science and replace it with the religious book of choice. Sorry if YOU don't like that.

Oh and btw, nobody has asked you to defend all of IDC at all times anywhere, well maybe Lenny has! What most people have asked you for is YOUR understanding of ID inorder to have a conversation. I know that being asked questions is horribly hostile to the near terminally insecure but if you could try to realise that the "hostility" you "experience" (for I question the validity of both those terms) is due precisely to frustration at your evasiveness, vacuity, and general assumption that the whole world is against you, I for one would be overwhelmingly grateful.

Louis

P.S. Oh and btw give me just one good reason that anyone should take the comments of Dembski et all seriously when the entirety of working scientists in the relevant fields of science to those comments don't take them at all seriosuly and have openly refuted them? Could it be that a) the evidence is not evenly distrubuted, and b) the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the IDCists, not the other way around?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,11:46   

Quote
"Violation" is easily misused (often by those who are using it for the purpose it was never designed for). An increased amount of disorder would render a low entropic reading. Lesser equilibrium, low entropy. Less complex, higher entropy.


I was simply making the point that subsystems that are not in thermal equilibrium can experience a decrease in entropy. dS/dt for the entire isolated system, which can be expressed as the sum of the entropy of all of the subsystems, must necessarily be positive or 0. Disorder here is the sense that the number of states of the system reaches a maximum at thermal equilibrium. In the case of a gas at a pressure separated by wall with a vacuum, the number of states initially is much smaller than after the divider has been lifted and the system has been allowed to relax into thermal eq. The system naturally picks the state with highest entropy, which will be a state in which the gas particles are distributed evenly in the entire box. It is an irreversible process (since the entropy changes), and therefore must be a state of high disorder as I've defined it.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,11:54   

Serendipity,

Re "If an intelligent designer does exist it is possibility within the best interest of humanity to have this substantiated. It is in the best interest of humanity because it allows for a sense of immortality, death merely become a transitional process as opposed to a conclusion of a process."

I don't see how the second sentence there follows, since an intelligent designer wouldn't necessarily care if we had an afterlife or not.

Henry

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,12:09   

Quote

AH the old "reading for comprehension" problem. Et tu it would appear Wesley.


Right back at you. I did not endorse Avocationist's notions; I was pointing out where they may have come from.

You can certainly take it from there, though I think that if you insist on speaking in code that the force of the "context" argument is much reduced, and the point about prediction rather than description is far too subtle for readers like Avocationist to appreciate on first misreading.

For someone who believes their words should be studied in the sort of loving detail required of the scholastics, you certainly didn't render that same attention to mine.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,12:10   

Re "I was simply making the point that subsystems that are not in thermal equilibrium can experience a decrease in entropy."

Like in recharging a battery.

  
Serendipity



Posts: 28
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,12:19   

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 24 2007,11:11)
The natural world doesn't care whether its behaviour makes sense to you, or to anybody else.  It just keeps on doing what it's doing, without even pausing to consider whether you like it or not.

Well said and couldn't of been said more precisely.

--------------
Without question or false modesty, no success has owed more to serendipity than ours. (Fischer)

  
Serendipity



Posts: 28
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,12:23   

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 24 2007,11:54)
Serendipity,

Re "If an intelligent designer does exist it is possibility within the best interest of humanity to have this substantiated. It is in the best interest of humanity because it allows for a sense of immortality, death merely become a transitional process as opposed to a conclusion of a process."

I don't see how the second sentence there follows, since an intelligent designer wouldn't necessarily care if we had an afterlife or not.

Henry

Henry,

Thats why I was particular in the selection of the words I used. Its not in the designers best interest, but in humanities.

Serendipty goes to work.

--------------
Without question or false modesty, no success has owed more to serendipity than ours. (Fischer)

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,12:40   

Wesley,

I am not susre where I said Darwin's ideas were misused. Maybe in relation to eugenics?

I am not excusing negative  and insulting rhetoric, I simply made the point that in some of those cases, they are comparing similar behaviors in certain situations, not actually calling the people nazi's, for example.

Quote
Johnson compares Gould to Gorbachev. Again, no discussion of the ideas. Is this really not a comparison: "Gould, like Gorbachev, deserves immense credit for bringing glasnost to a closed society of dogmatists. And, like Gorbachev, he lives on as a sad reminder of what happens to those who lack the nerve to make a clean break with a dying theory." ?
It isn't the same sort of comparison as I have seen made, for example, when IDists have compared academic establishment behaviors to a priesthood. That is a direct comparison, but if they compare a situation in which a regime is under challenge to a similar one involving the soviets or Gorbachev, it is not a direct comparison, i.e., they are not calling them communists. He is saying that Gould finds himself in a similar predicament.

Hello Creek (where do some people come up with these names?),

Quote
"A closed system with a specific internal energy will tend to relax


Is it not so that even in an open system, the tendency toward equilibrium is still there, but simply can be counteracted?

I didn't understand your post and I'm not sure I should ask.

Why do you multiply the states, then switch and add them instead, and why do you say that A entropy increases and B entropy decreases and yet say they are not in equilibrium with each other. It wasn't clear to me whether system A and B are interacting. What does the In stand for in this:
( ln(6x10) = ln(6)+ln(10)
Quote
Personally, I'm curious in what manner you're interested in applying the 2nd law. Is it abiogenesis, or evolution, or genetic information, or even something as general as having a universe that isn't in thermal equilibrium?
General information about how things work, and specifically about how other laws might be in an interactive system with it.

Chris,

Quote
In scientific terms that's a conjecture or a hypothesis at best.
Yes, it's probably a hypothesis. That's alright with me.
Quote
The 'theory of intelligent design' needs to include what the designer did, and in more detail than 'he designed things somehow'. For example it needs to include whether evolution was frontloaded at some point, or if the designer intervened whenever anything needed doing. It needs to take a position one way or the other on common descent, and most likely the age of the earth. If the earth is young it needs to explain how x number of kinds could evolve into x number of species in a few thousand years. If life was frontloaded it needs to explain how the unused information was not degraded by mutation, and in more detail than something like 'some kind of fantastic error correction mechanism'.
Those are ALL important questions.

Quote

Most importantly this theory needs to make predictions,
I have seen a few. Just reading around. Natch I can't remember them. But I have made one yesterday. I predict that we will find specifics in  genetics/embryonic development that prevent species from jumping the species barrier. I.e., we will find a species barrier. Of course, that could be a problem if there is frontloading. If there is frontloading, we will have to find out how the programming allows for saltation into new species, on a periodic but not gradual basis.

Demallion,
Quote
The big problem with your use of entropy, is that you wish to refer to some properties of entropy in a closed system.
So does entropy have any effect on a biological organism? What about when it dies?

Do you really think I don't know what you posted about the mechanism of evolution? Are you really unaware that much has been written to refute that? Are you unaware that while it might sound good it might not stand up to scrutiny? I mean, what was the point in assuming I didn't know that mutations are considered to be the driving force of evolution? If you didn't read my post, why throw in your two cents? I clearly stated it isn't adequate, and I think it is a wrong turn that the theory took, and its salvation lies in rethinking that.

Cedric,

If you'll note, I made a general response to 3 posters together. One of them said he wished that just once an IDer would state what the theory of ID is. Now, that's pretty absurd since it is clearly and often stated at the various sites. As to your request that I put my theory in my own words, I consider that a silly time waster. Does each of you have your own personal theory of evolution? would you feel called upon to improve upon, say, Mayr's def?

What I gave you was plenty of my own thoughts and ideas, as well as a quick run down of where I'm coming from, what I've read and considered important. You want to play a little game on your terms.

The bit about if I was at a party is actually a good way to put it, but I am not sure I'd bother at the party. I'd give a very vague rundown, and tell them that if they are truly interested and they probably are not, that I can loan them a book. I'd tell them that things are not alwasy as they appear and they may have heard one side.

I think I said quite a few interesting things in my post. the one liner wasn't even for you.

Don-
Quote
Me: Fascinating! Which ones? And why?


Are you completely unaquainted with the literature? What have you read?

Serendipity,

That last paragraph, in italics, is it from you? The conclusion that an intelligent designer gives us hope for immortality doesn't really follow.

If it is from you, then it means you find the arguments of Denton, Dembski, Behe, Meyer insultingly simplistic.

In that case, I'd like you to answer the following and clear it up for me,
Quote
   If selection could, in principle, accomplish “anything,” then all the order in organisms might reflect selection alone. But, in fact, there are limits to selection. Such limits begin to demand a shift in our thinking in the biological sciences and beyond. We have already encountered a first powerful limitation on selection. Darwin’s view of the gradual accumulations of useful variations, we saw, required gradualism. Mutations must cause slight alterations in phenotypes, But we have now seen two alternative model “worlds” in which such gradualism fails. The first concerns maximally compressed programs. Because these are random, almost certainly any change randomizes the performance of the program. Finding one of the few useful minimal programs requires searching the entire space ­requiring unthinkably long times compared with the history of the universe even for modestly large programs … But the matter is even worse on such random landscapes. If an adapting population evolves by mutation and selection alone, it will remain frozen in an infinitesimal region of the total space, trapped forever in whatever region it started in. It will be unable to search long distances across space for higher peaks. Yet if the population dares try recombination, it will be harmed on average, not helped. There is a second limitation on selection. It is not only on random landscapes that evolution fails. Even on smooth landscapes, in the heartland of gradualism, just where Darwin’s assumptions hold, selection can again fail and fail utterly. Selection runs headlong into an “error catastrophe” where all accumulated useful traits melt away…. Thus there appears to be a limit on the complexity of a genome that can be assembled by mutation and selection!

   Stuart Kaffman, At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 183-184.


While you are at it, resolve the Haldane's dilemma.

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,12:41   

Quote
I am going to make individual assignments to the people here.

1. Let me know why you disagree with Mike Gene's essay on the flagellum, and give some good arguments about how its assembly process evolved.

2. I want thoughtful critiques of separate chapters of Denton's book, Evolution in crisis.

3. Where did Berlinski go wrong in his assessment of the Nilsson-Pelger paper?

4. A full critique of Dembski's response to The Flagellum Unspun.

It's so sad.  Avo thinks he/she can easily demonstrate the unfairness of our demands to actually cite ID theory and evidence by turning the questioning around and demanding the same pathetic level of detail we all know we'll never get from him/her or from ID.  Of course, it will impact Avo's thinking not one bit that the people he/she's arguing with can immediately begin to thoroughly answer her questions, and he/she will never own up to the real meaning of the contrast between this and his/her/ID's own total inability and obstinate refusal to forthrightly answer ours.
 
Quote
If you don't like the theory of evolution, no-one is going to be impressed with the nasty taste in your mouth.  What's your evidence for not liking it?

Right.  Because, Avo, you're not just disliking it, you're trying to convince others they should dislike it too.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,13:07   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,12:40)
In that case, I'd like you to answer the following and clear it up for me,
Quote
   If selection could, in principle, accomplish “anything,” then all the order in organisms might reflect selection alone. But, in fact, there are limits to selection. Such limits begin to demand a shift in our thinking in the biological sciences and beyond. We have already encountered a first powerful limitation on selection. Darwin’s view of the gradual accumulations of useful variations, we saw, required gradualism. Mutations must cause slight alterations in phenotypes, But we have now seen two alternative model “worlds” in which such gradualism fails. The first concerns maximally compressed programs. Because these are random, almost certainly any change randomizes the performance of the program. Finding one of the few useful minimal programs requires searching the entire space ­requiring unthinkably long times compared with the history of the universe even for modestly large programs … But the matter is even worse on such random landscapes. If an adapting population evolves by mutation and selection alone, it will remain frozen in an infinitesimal region of the total space, trapped forever in whatever region it started in. It will be unable to search long distances across space for higher peaks. Yet if the population dares try recombination, it will be harmed on average, not helped. There is a second limitation on selection. It is not only on random landscapes that evolution fails. Even on smooth landscapes, in the heartland of gradualism, just where Darwin’s assumptions hold, selection can again fail and fail utterly. Selection runs headlong into an “error catastrophe” where all accumulated useful traits melt away…. Thus there appears to be a limit on the complexity of a genome that can be assembled by mutation and selection!

   Stuart Kaffman, At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 183-184.


While you are at it, resolve the Haldane's dilemma.

Wow. Talk about ships at night. Try looking into "genetically isolated populations". Then, if I may be so hopeful, read Gould. Seriously.

The Structure of Evolutionary Theory
.

That book is where he outlines his problems with evolution. You might be surprised to find that, although large, it is quite readable. I am often reminded of this thread when I read comments like yours.

Do you think you are open-minded?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,13:11   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,13:40)
Quote

Most importantly this theory needs to make predictions,
I have seen a few. Just reading around. Natch I can't remember them. But I have made one yesterday. I predict that we will find specifics in  genetics/embryonic development that prevent species from jumping the species barrier. I.e., we will find a species barrier. Of course, that could be a problem if there is frontloading. If there is frontloading, we will have to find out how the programming allows for saltation into new species, on a periodic but not gradual basis.

Ah, I see.  You are confused about what we mean by "predictions".  It is not meant in the sense that you take it - that we will somehow find evidence in the future.  Think of it as more of an if-then statement.  IF humans and apes share a recent common ancestor, THEN we should have relatively similar DNA to modern-day apes.  ELSE humans and apes do not share a recent common ancestor.

Predictions are tied to the concept of falsifiability.  Your predictions are scientifically useless because (as far as I can tell), a negative result will not falsify your theory.

So far you still seem to be stuck with "Someday there will be evidence for ID, though I am not sure what that specific evidence will be."

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,13:12   

Quote

I am not excusing negative  and insulting rhetoric, I simply made the point that in some of those cases, they are comparing similar behaviors in certain situations, not actually calling the people nazi's, for example.

Quote

Johnson compares Gould to Gorbachev. Again, no discussion of the ideas. Is this really not a comparison: "Gould, like Gorbachev, deserves immense credit for bringing glasnost to a closed society of dogmatists. And, like Gorbachev, he lives on as a sad reminder of what happens to those who lack the nerve to make a clean break with a dying theory." ?


It isn't the same sort of comparison as I have seen made, for example, when IDists have compared academic establishment behaviors to a priesthood. That is a direct comparison, but if they compare a situation in which a regime is under challenge to a similar one involving the soviets or Gorbachev, it is not a direct comparison, i.e., they are not calling them communists. He is saying that Gould finds himself in a similar predicament.


I didn't say that Johnson was calling Gould a communist. I said that he was making an invidious comparison of Gould to Gorbachev. Which he did. This is not a hair-splitting moment.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,13:21   

Hi Avo,

I can't answer your whole question, but I can clear up this bit until CB comes by:
Quote
Why do you multiply the states, then switch and add them instead, and why do you say that A entropy increases and B entropy decreases and yet say they are not in equilibrium with each other. It wasn't clear to me whether system A and B are interacting. What does the In stand for in this:
( ln(6x10) = ln(6)+ln(10)

ln (that's a lowercase L, not an I), is the natural logarithm function. Creeky has not "switched" anything, but rather has expressed the function differently. The natural logarithm of X times Y ALWAYS equals the natural logarithm of X plus the natural logarithm of Y.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,13:40   

Re "Because, Avo, you're not just disliking it, you're trying to convince others they should dislike it too."

Besides which, disliking a conclusion and thinking it to be wrong, are two different things. For all I know, some evolutionary biologists might personally dislike some of conclusions of the ToE, but that doesn't mean they think they're wrong.

Henry

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,14:12   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 24 2007,18:09)
Quote

AH the old "reading for comprehension" problem. Et tu it would appear Wesley.


Right back at you. I did not endorse Avocationist's notions; I was pointing out where they may have come from.

You can certainly take it from there, though I think that if you insist on speaking in code that the force of the "context" argument is much reduced, and the point about prediction rather than description is far too subtle for readers like Avocationist to appreciate on first misreading.

For someone who believes their words should be studied in the sort of loving detail required of the scholastics, you certainly didn't render that same attention to mine.

Touche et pointe!

Now THIS is why arguing with someone with a brain is a true joy.

I was wrong Wesley, and being slightly naughty. My apologies and thanks.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
don_quixote



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,14:23   

{at a party}

Me: So, the theory of I.D., eh? What do you mean by that?

Avo: The theory of ID states that certain features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design.

Me: Fascinating! Which ones? And why?

Avo: Are you completely unaquainted with the literature? What have you read?

Me: I've never heard of it before, but you seem to think it explains natural phenomena well. I was just wondering which features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design?

[throw me a frickin' bone here!]

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,14:24   

Quote
Hello Creek (where do some people come up with these names?),


In high school my friend and I spent a whole summer making short, stupidly comedic movies, and it took so much of our time we ended up missing meals; thus our bellies creaked.  It became the nickname of our production company, and just kinda stuck with me.

Quote
"A closed system with a specific internal energy will tend to relax

Quote

Is it not so that even in an open system, the tendency toward equilibrium is still there, but simply can be counteracted?

I didn't understand your post and I'm not sure I should ask.


You can do work on certain subsystems to decrease entropy, but the work you do will always result in the entropy of the whole system (including you) remaining constant or increasing.

Quote

Why do you multiply the states, then switch and add them instead, and why do you say that A entropy increases and B entropy decreases and yet say they are not in equilibrium with each other. It wasn't clear to me whether system A and B are interacting. What does the In stand for in this:
( ln(6x10) = ln(6)+ln(10)


So you multiply the states because you can have the following:

State A (1-6)   State B (1-10)
1                     1
...                    ...
1                     10
2                     1
....                   ....
6                     10

therefore there are 6x10=60 total states.
Entropy uses a logarithm, which allows us to add the quantities since it has the property that:

logarithm(6x10) = logarithm(6)+logarithm(10)

There are different logarithm bases to choose from, and the simplest is base 10, so that:

log(10) = 1

therefore:

log(1000) = log(10x10x10) = log(10)+log(10)+log(10) = 3

There's what we call the natural logarithm, as well, in a base which is called 'e', and is abbreviated 'ln'

ln(e) = ln(2.7181) = 1

It has the same additive properties as the other base 10, but the actual values will be different.

In this setup A is allowed to interact with B, but is otherwise isolated.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,14:27   

Hmm. Well, Avocationist, I find myself somewhat torn here.
I recognize that you're merely attempting to turn the evidentiary table -- asking that people here dismantle ID claims before you have produced any evidence of it --

I think it's somewhat useful to point out that IF you had indeed an INFORMED opinion on the subject at hand, you'd have actually read all reasonably available material from the opposing camp.

At any rate, in the interest of actually getting you to produce what you believe to be evidence FOR ID (rather than merely against Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary theory), I'll point you to a few well-known examples of what you asked for:

On the flagellum:    
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/09/flagellum_evolu.html Be sure to read the linked paper(s) cited there and in the comments.

Critiques of Denton can be found at:  
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html  
http://www.2think.org/eatic.shtml
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/denton.html

A discussion of Haldane's dilemma can be found at :  http://www.pandasthumb.org/archive....-154697 Posted by caligula on January 11, 2007 4:53 PM. Note particularly the discussion of intra-species competition. All members of a given species compete for resources. In a finite landscape...members of a species will compete not merely against other species, but also amongst themselves. ReMine ( as he abuses Haldane)  seems unable to deal with this, and has not addressed it at all to my knowledge.

In regards to the Kaufmann quote: Kaufmann is doing two things there:
One, pointing out that selection is falsifiable and limited (contrary to the claims of ID-ers, who say silly things about "Evilushunists claim selection can do anything!!")

Two, he is pointing out that the real world of evolution is neither one great unbounded, utterly random search nor is it a great smooth plane. We only have a sample of ONE planet where life exists and on this planet constraints exist that preclude PURE randomness and that life does not proceed by ONLY mutation and selection. There are other means known by which variation occurs.

Now, would it be possible for you to lay out your evidentiary support FOR ID?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,14:36   

Avocationist: I'd also like to politely ask that if you have specific disagreements with what I posted, that you'd at least hold off a bit on those and instead focus on PRECISELY what evidence from ID you find so compelling?
I'm hoping for something a bit more substantive than arguments from incredulity and "because I said so." Arguments that actually have a bit of science in them are preferred in science, I should think. Thanks.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,15:02   

From page 188 of Kaufmann's "At Home in the Universe" ( the end of the chapter you cited):
" ..we return to a tantalyzing possibility: that self-organization is a prerequisite for evolvability, that it generates the kinds of structures that can benefit from natural selection. It generates structures that can evolve gradually, that are robust, for there is an inevitable relationship among spontaneous order, robustness, redundancy, gradualism and correlated landscapes."

I should have added this to the post I made above -- Kaufmann is specifically arguing for that self-organizing principles work hand-in-hand with variation and selection in a rugged landscape to produce order that is stable, even at the "chaotic edge" of a non-linear framework. ( but this doesn't mean "infinitely stable")

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,15:12   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,13:40)
Is it not so that even in an open system, the tendency toward equilibrium is still there, but simply can be counteracted?

I'm just curious - do you think that our planet is or has ever been in or near a state of equilibrium?

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,15:26   

Quote
Those are ALL important questions.
Which all need to be addressed before you can claim there is a theory of design, which needs to be done before you can claim positive evidence for design. The alternative would be strectching incredulity to breaking point, but this would involve something like producing the designer, discovering a centaur or a unicorn,or decoding a stretch of DNA that reads 'designed circa 4004 BC'.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,16:04   

Re "discovering a centaur or a unicorn,"

Course, that by itself wouldn't be evidence that anything else was deliberately engineered - something with bioengineering tech and a sense of humor might have read some human mythology and decided to pull a prank (i.e., it might have nothing to do with how anything else originated).

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,16:31   

Quote (k.e. @ Jan. 24 2007,01:37)
Avo. I suggest you devise an experiment to test for g$d then sit back and wait, when you get the results and you don't like them ......wait some more.

Just for the excercise how would you test for g$d?

I can give you plenty of examples if you want.

I've asked that same thing of her several times.  Good luck getting an answer.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,16:32   

Avocationist:

 
Quote
1. Let me know why you disagree with Mike Gene's essay on the flagellum, and give some good arguments about how its assembly process evolved.

2. I want thoughtful critiques of separate chapters of Denton's book, Evolution in crisis.

3. Where did Berlinski go wrong in his assessment of the Nilsson-Pelger paper?

4. A full critique of Dembski's response to The Flagellum Unspun.


These aren't bad topics..... I've been looking for an answer to 3 for a looooooong time. But keep in mind that some of these arguments are much broader in scope than others. For example, Berlinski's criticism of N-P, even if valid, only touches on one paper. 2, on the other hand, is a broadside on common descent itself. Maybe we should focus on Denton for now. One problem is that Denton himself has repudiated much of the arguments in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. There are other problems with the book which I'll get to tonight. Deadman's links are certainly worth a look.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,17:57   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,10:27)
1. Let me know why you disagree with Mike Gene's essay on the flagellum, and give some good arguments about how its assembly process evolved.

2. I want thoughtful critiques of separate chapters of Denton's book, Evolution in crisis.

3. Where did Berlinski go wrong in his assessment of the Nilsson-Pelger paper?

4. A full critique of Dembski's response to The Flagellum Unspun.

And I expect it all back by this evening, or I'll start questioning your motives, your character, and your sanity.

And you intend to, uh, actually READ them . . . ?

Or will you just page through it briefly and find it boring, like you did Mayr . . . .

I see no need in attempting to teach someone who simply doesn't want to hear it.

Paticularly when that person can answer all of her own questions with ten minutes of Google.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,18:04   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,10:27)
2. I want thoughtful critiques of separate chapters of Denton's book, Evolution in crisis.

3. Where did Berlinski go wrong in his assessment of the Nilsson-Pelger paper?

By the way, Avo, didja know that Denton repudiated that book in his very next book, declared that ID is full of crap, and left the Discovery Institute?

Didja know that Berlinski also thinks ID is full of crap?

Silly me --- of COURSE you don't know that --- you're utterly and totally pig-ignorant of the entire topic.  Just like you were when you declared that the Roman Catholic Christian Ken Miller's science textbook taught students that there is no need for God, and when you stupidly declared that the word "unguided" was dropped from his textbook, when in fact that word was added to the Kansas science standards --- and it was added BY THE CREATIONISTS.

And you wonder why everyone here thinks you're an uninformed buffoon?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,18:08   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,10:27)
Now, again, I dropped by to commiserate a little because of the banning business at UD

Hey Avo, did it ever occur to you to wonder why the IDers think you're just as nutty as everyone here does . . . . .?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,18:08   

Quote
I predict that we will find specifics in  genetics/embryonic development that prevent species from jumping the species barrier. I.e., we will find a species barrier. Of course, that could be a problem if there is frontloading. If there is frontloading, we will have to find out how the programming allows for saltation into new species, on a periodic but not gradual basis.
Firstly I keep quite up to date with the literature and currently there is absolutely no evidence of this barrier, in fact is is considerably less likely than it was a decade ago. Secondly the way you prove frontloading is to first hypothesize mechanisms and then make predicitons. I don't see how you can 'discover frontloading' and the work out the mechanism. Im pretty sure that it would be a lot easier to disprove evolution by proving that there is some kind of frontloading mechanism than just coming up with negative arguments. This is what the ID people should be doing, and if they are right this whole debate will be over much quicker. Unfortunately they seem to have no wish to do this at all.

Quote
Re "discovering a centaur or a unicorn,"

Course, that by itself wouldn't be evidence that anything else was deliberately engineered - something with bioengineering tech and a sense of humor might have read some human mythology and decided to pull a prank (i.e., it might have nothing to do with how anything else originated).
Your right, I think sometimes I read so much ID stuff that even I start to think evidence against evolution = evidence for ID. Excuse me while I bang my head against the wall a few times.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,18:13   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,10:27)
I got jumped by Lenny with "Aha! Here's a creationist - so explain to me creationist, why they wrote what they did in the wedge document.

I apologize for hearing the same old hoofbeats and assuming it was yet another horse, instead of assuming it must be a zebra.

Of course, if you walk into a room full of duck hunters, flap your arms, and yell "QUACK QUACK QUACK !!!!", you shouldn't act all surprised and hurt when you get an ass full of buckshot.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,18:18   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,12:40)
I didn't understand your post and I'm not sure I should ask.

Gee, Avo, there seem to be an awful lot of instances where you say things like "I don't understand this . . ."  and "I don't know anything about that . . . " and "I never read this . . . . "

Do you think that maybe, just MAYBE, mind you, you should, uh, shut the #### up and stop yammering stupidly about things that you don't understand and don't know anything about?

Does that sound like it might, just MIGHT, be a pretty good idea for you?


Geez.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,18:25   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,12:40)
While you are at it, resolve the Haldane's dilemma.

Avo, I've got twenty bucks in my pocket right now that says you can't even tell us, in your own words, what "the Haldane's dilemma (sic)"  ********IS***********, much less be able to tell when and if anyone has "resolved" it.

See, Avo, I think you're utterly totally absolutely completely pig-ignorant of every single topc that you are presuming to discuss here.  Indeed, My assertion is that you're doing nothing but brainlessly regurgitating big words that you've heard in ID religious tracts (which my five year old nephew can do just as well as you), and that you yourself don't actually have the foggiest goddamn idea, none at all whatsoever, not even the remotest clue, what any of those big words actually MEAN.

Here's your chance to prove me wrong, Avo, right in front of the whole world.

What is "the Haldane's dilemma (sic)"?

Please be as detailed as possible, use your own words, and take as many screens as you need.

Demonstrate to me that you actually have the slightest grasp of what you are yammering about.

Or otherwise.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,18:28   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 24 2007,18:57)
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,10:27)
1. Let me know why you disagree with Mike Gene's essay on the flagellum, and give some good arguments about how its assembly process evolved.

2. I want thoughtful critiques of separate chapters of Denton's book, Evolution in crisis.

3. Where did Berlinski go wrong in his assessment of the Nilsson-Pelger paper?

4. A full critique of Dembski's response to The Flagellum Unspun.

And I expect it all back by this evening, or I'll start questioning your motives, your character, and your sanity.

And you intend to, uh, actually READ them . . . ?

Or will you just page through it briefly and find it boring, like you did Mayr . . . .

I see no need in attempting to teach someone who simply doesn't want to hear it.

Paticularly when that person can answer all of her own questions with ten minutes of Google.  (shrug)

Worse than that, she'll never be convinced with what any of us says, since she already KNOWS the Truth.  It's like Creationists and missing links.  Find as many missing links as you want, but they are never enough, because they can always say that you have to find the links between the missing links.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,18:34   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 24 2007,19:13)
Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,10:27)
I got jumped by Lenny with "Aha! Here's a creationist - so explain to me creationist, why they wrote what they did in the wedge document.

I apologize for hearing the same old hoofbeats and assuming it was yet another horse, instead of assuming it must be a zebra.

Of course, if you walk into a room full of duck hunters, flap your arms, and yell "QUACK QUACK QUACK !!!!", you shouldn't act all surprised and hurt when you get an ass full of buckshot.  (shrug)

Screw that.  Avo says ID is science, and that the DI is right.  Well, then Avo should explain to us why the wedge document is all about pushing religion through ID and why it pretty explicitly says ID is religious.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,18:43   

Quote (GCT @ Jan. 24 2007,18:34)
Screw that.  Avo says ID is science, and that the DI is right.  Well, then Avo should explain to us why the wedge document is all about pushing religion through ID and why it pretty explicitly says ID is religious.

She's never read it, remember?

She's never read ANYTHING.

That's why she hasn't a goddamn clue what she's blithering about.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,18:48   



Hey everybody, and welcome to the Feud!



"Are you ready? Are you ready to play? Okay. The category is, 'Extremely tired-assed old arguments found on the Index to Creationist Claims'. Avocationist family, what's your answer?"

"Uh...uh....ooo...I know...Haldane's Dilemma?"

"Show me 'Haldane's Dilemma'!"



DING!

"Fantastic. And don't forget to take this copy of the home edition."


   
k.e.



Posts: 40
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,18:51   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Jan. 24 2007,18:43)
Quote (GCT @ Jan. 24 2007,18:34)
Screw that.  Avo says ID is science, and that the DI is right.  Well, then Avo should explain to us why the wedge document is all about pushing religion through ID and why it pretty explicitly says ID is religious.

She's never read it, remember?

She's never read ANYTHING.

That's why she hasn't a goddamn clue what she's blithering about.  (shrug)

AND PROUD OF IT!!!!

I'll have you know a 'Vocationist' in my world means doing nothing.

I looked it up on dictionary dot com and it said 'have a vacation...to do nothing'.

It's easy...just look....

Lenny you are a duck ...look it up and explain it to everyone..I'll be back later when your done.

If there are any questions .....I'm right and you are wrong ...next question.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,19:40   

First, here's a summary of Denton's position by someone sympathetic to Intelligent Design:

     
Quote
Attempts to dismiss the argument that DNA sequence comparisons imply common descent have been published by critics of Evolution. The most popular one is explained by Denton in Ref. 13 and was used in the popular creation textbook Ref. 14. Denton presents Table 7 of 21 different organism which shows the percent of the number of AA which are different amongst all of the AA sites in the Cytochrome C molecule for each of these 21 organisms. Table 3 shows that of the 110 AA sites in the Cytochrome C, 10 AA sites are different so Denton’s table would report a 100/110=91% value for the human to mouse comparison. The 21 organisms in Denton’s table essentially cover the whole range from humans to bacteria. Denton’s orders the organisms in his table according to the time from the proposed divergence from a common ancestor with the most recent ones on the top of the table and the most ancient divergence at the bottom. Thus, moving up the table means that according to evolution the species are expected to be more closely related and developed from a common ancestor more recently according to evolution. Since the relatively simple bacteria are considered some of the first organisms to evolve and the more complicated humans are some of the most recent, Denton’s table provides an opportunity to investigate the trend through time for the proposed sequences of development of organisms through evolution.
[see table 7 -- Paley]

Denton acknowledges his table does indicate that the percent differences get smaller the more closer the organisms are related. Denton's points out that the general pattern from the sequences indicate the same standard hiearchial topological categories that biologist Linnaeus came up with before Darwin proposed the theory of evolution. For example, within jawed vertebrates the group of terrestrial (land) organisms, amphibia, reptiles and mammals are more closely related than non-terrestrial organisms (fish). Within these groups such as mammals, there are groups of mammals such as rodents or hoofed animals that are consistently more closely related to each other than other groups of mammals. Denton and evolutionist would agree that the DNA sequences imply a pattern which is consistent with the standard hiearchial topological categories. The disagreement comes from Denton's claim that the pattern implies no transitional forms; therefore, the pattern does not indicate evolution.

Denton makes the case for no transitional forms being implied by pointing out that no sequence or group of sequences can be designated as intermediate with respect to other groups. "of the remaining Eukaryotic cytochromes, … all exhibit a sequence divergence between 64 and 67 percent." Since all the sequences have about the same difference in this comparisons Denton correctly points out that this indicate that none of them stands out as a transitional form, " … It means that no Eukaryotic cytochromes is intermediate between the bacterial cytochrome and the other Eukaryotic cytochromes" Denton goes on to say that this implies there is no transitional form; thus, the "missing links" are truly missing.


But as the author proceeds to note:

   
Quote
The fundamental flaw in this argument is that the sequence comparisons made in Denton’s table are from modern organisms not extinct ancient ones. The DNA sequences are taken from organisms that are alive today. Evolution proposes the common ancestor of the modern bacterial cytochrome and the other Eukaryotic cytochromes lived hundreds of millions of years ago. This would be some ancient bacteria which diverged from the path that led to the modern bacteria and started the path that led to the other Eukaryotic cytochromes. If this ancient bacteria could be compared to the other bacteria it diverged from then their sequence would be quite similar as Denton expects. The problem is Denton was expecting the modern organisms to have similar sequences which is not appropriate for this case because evolution proposes that the divergence from the bacteria occurred hundreds of millions of years ago. Because of the redundancy in the Cyctochrome C AA sequence there is no constraint to keep the sequences from changing. Naturally, the Cyctochrome C AA sequences have been continuing to change between all the different species since the time they diverged. Thus, there is no reason to expect any of the modern species compared to the modern bacteria to have an AA sequence that matches more closely to the modern bacteria. Therefore, the reason why Denton did not find the missing link in his table is because his table only has modern organisms. The transitional Cyctochrome C AA sequences if it did exist most likely became extinct hundreds of millions of years ago.

Denton is aware that it is the ancient organisms that are expected to have the most similar sequences, but claims that there is no evidence that this assumption is correct. There is good reason to expect that the more ancient organisms are expected to have more similar sequences. Based on the reasonable assumption that organism have always developed mutations, it is expected that organisms collected more and more variation over time even if their morphology remained the same over time because of the high level of redundancy in the DNA and AA sequences. Since it is very difficult if not impossible to get the sequences for these ancient organisms because they died out a long time ago, it is not appropriate to expect to study these ancient sequences directly. However, they can be implied. Even though no common ancestor or transitional organism is found in the table, Denton’s Table does imply a common ancestor because going up the table the sequences consistently become more similar. Evolution predicts this trend because going up the tables means the proposed common ancestor is more recent. Some creationist would object to this by arguing that this is also expected from fundamental creation because the more similar the organisms the more similar the sequences should be. While this may be true when comparing all the DNA of the different organism; however, there is no biological reason for this to be true when comparing just the DNA sequence for the Cytochrome C protein. As previously pointed out in section 5, many different cytochrome C AA sequence produce the same function; thus, there appears to be no requirement for the designer to specifically make the cytochrome C AA sequence similar. In fact only 14% of the sites are required to be the same according to Table 3.

Denton goes onto to point out that evolution could explain his table of data if there is a sequence change or mutation rate that is constant over time. The theory that mutation rates are fairly constant over time; thus, sequences difference can be used to measure time from divergence has been labeled "molecular clock". Denton points out that the mutation rate is not expected to be constant for the organisms in his table because they involve species with a very large variation of reproduction rates. Denton expects that mutation rates would be related to the number of generations which means that those species which regenerate quickly such as flies will develop mutations in the population in a much shorter amount of time then humans would. Since Denton’s table indicates that the mutation rate was constant with time rather then related to the number of generations, he concludes that the data in his table cannot be successfully explained by evolution. It appears to me that evolutionist have not yet figured out the molecular clock. Determining what caused mutations when they occurred and how often is very complicated problem; thus, it is not surprising that evolutionist have not yet developed a mature understanding of how the differences in the sequences came about. However, the determination of common ancestors does not require having this issue be resolved. As explained in section 5 it is possible to infer common ancestors from the similarities in the sequences.


All bolding mine. (Incidentally, one of Deadman's sources supports this idea with purty pictures. Admittedly, the author of this piece is an idiot, but ya gotta work with what ya gots. :D :D )

Scientists have made progress in quantifying the degree to which metabolism and body size affects the molecular clock. But before discussing this, here are a few observations:

   
Quote
The generation time argument is a bit bogus for several reasons. First, mutation rates are based on changes per cell division (replication) and not generation time. Thus, in mammals such a mouse, there are about 50 cell divisions between zygote and gamete and the organism reproduces in about 100 days. Thus, there is, on average, one mutation-causing replication event every two days. This is no more than the average "generation time" of single-celled organisms such as yeast or bacteria. (Bacteria divide once every few days, at most, contrary to what most people believe.)

The second reason for skepticism is that for most of the history of life the "generation time" of different organisms isn't that much different. Large terrestrial mammals, for example, have only been around for about 15% of the time since single-celled life began.

Molecular biologists and population geneticists have thought about these things. They conclude that the evidence favors the idea that phylogenetic trees are due to fixation of nearly neutral alleles by random genetic drift. This explains the molecular clock.


Now here's an attempt to model the effects of body size and metabolism on the molecular clock:

   
Quote
Here, we present a model of nucleotide substitution that combines theory on metabolic rate with the now-classic neutral theory of molecular evolution. The model quantitatively predicts rate heterogeneity and may reconcile differences in molecular- and fossil-estimated dates of evolutionary events. Model predictions are supported by extensive data from mitochondrial and nuclear genomes. By accounting for the effects of body size and temperature on metabolic rate, this model explains heterogeneity in rates of nucleotide substitution in different genes, taxa, and thermal environments. This model also suggests that there is indeed a single molecular clock, as originally proposed by Zuckerkandl and Pauling [Zuckerkandl, E. & Pauling, L. (1965) in Evolving Genes and Proteins, eds. Bryson, V. & Vogel, H. J. (Academic, New York), pp. 97–166], but that it "ticks" at a constant substitution rate per unit of mass-specific metabolic energy rather than per unit of time. This model therefore links energy flux and genetic change. More generally, the model suggests that body size and temperature combine to control the overall rate of evolution through their effects on metabolism.
[...]
Here, we propose a model that predicts heterogeneity in rates of molecular evolution by combining principles of allometry and biochemical kinetics with Kimura's neutral theory of evolution. The model quantifies the relationship between rates of energy flux and genetic change based explicitly on the effects of body size and temperature on metabolic rate. Although the model does not distinguish between the metabolic rate and generation time hypotheses, it accounts for much of the observed rate heterogeneity across a wide range of taxa in diverse environments. Recalibrating the molecular clocks by using metabolic rate reconciles some fossil- and molecular-based estimates of divergence.
[...]
Building on previous work showing correlations of substitution rate to body size (6), these results show that all animals cluster around a single line that is predicted by our model. Note that the model quantifies the combined effects of body size and temperature. Analyses that consider these variables separately, like much of the previous literature, explain much less of the observed variation in substitution rates (Table 2).
[...]
These results also may have broader implications for understanding the factors controlling the overall rate of evolution. The central role of metabolic rate in controlling biological rate processes implies that metabolic processes also govern evolutionary rates at higher levels of biological organization where the neutral molecular theory does not apply. So, for example, the rate and direction of phenotypic evolution ultimately depends on the somewhat unpredictable action of natural selection. However, the overall rate of evolution ultimately is constrained by the turnover rate of individuals in populations, as reflected in generation time, and the genomic variation among individuals, as reflected in mutation rate (16, 24). Both of these rates are proportional to metabolic rate, so Eq. 1 also may predict the effects of body size and temperature on overall rates of genotypic and phenotypic change. Such predictions would be consistent with general macroevolutionary patterns showing that most higher taxonomic groups originate in the tropics where temperatures are high (25), speciation rates decrease with decreasing temperature from the equator to the poles (26, 27), biodiversity is highest in the tropics (28), and smaller organisms evolve faster and are more diverse than larger organisms (29).


Here's an older article on generation times and a little background.

Even worse, however, is the fact that Denton's hypothesis has no way to account for phylogenies based on unitary pseudogenes, retroviral insertions, SINEs, and LINES. Worst of all, Denton's hypothesis doesn't address the stunning congruence between different phylogenetic trees.

In summary, the molecular evidence provides overwhelming support for evolution, and little help for creationism.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Serendipity



Posts: 28
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,20:14   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,12:40)

A standard technique with creationists (you're very welcome to come and view that very technique in chat, live - Yahoo: Religion and Beliefs: Religion 1 Chat) is to start answering questions with questions. So you actually push the onus off being accountable, onto others - which you have done - rather successfully. I critiqued Dembski's mathematical formula (please go back and reread). In the process of doing that, you now wish to be educated? Something else I find insulting.

To use YOUR technique: if you can't answer "what is the proof for intelligent design" then how about being honest and giving UP?

--------------
Without question or false modesty, no success has owed more to serendipity than ours. (Fischer)

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,22:35   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,13:40)
Demallion,
 
Quote
The big problem with your use of entropy, is that you wish to refer to some properties of entropy in a closed system.
So does entropy have any effect on a biological organism? What about when it dies?
Avocationist,
It's good your asking questions about Thermodynamics.  I hope you continue if for no other reason than to understand the subject more yourself.  I can answer your question here.

Entropy, like all the other Thermodynamic energies described, can be established within biologic systems by utilizing the balance equations and state properties within the Thermodynamics properties/Laws/rules/etc.  There are a lot of variables and there is certainly no true equilibrium reached with the surrounding environment.
When a biological organism dies then the environment within and around the organism changes its equilibrium values because the organism no longer has "active" interaction with the surrounding environment.

Let's do a quick checklist on this word "active".  By this I mean;
*The organism no longer converts inputs (light, food, water) to outputs (energy, internal structure, wastes).  This could include symbiotic or parasitic relationships.
*The organism to longer moves/grows to attain more light/food/water.
*The organism no longer reproduces to form additional organisms.
Each of these processes can be individually parsed to a detailed description of the functions involved.

So do you wish to go into finer detail on this Entropy question?

Mike PSS

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,22:39   

Index. Creationist. Claims.

#  (see also CE400: Cosmology)
# CF000: Second Law of Thermodynamics and Information Theory

   * (see also CB102: Mutations don't add information.)
   * (see also CE441: Big Bang doesn't produce information.)
   * CF001. The second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution.
         o CF001.1. Systems left to themselves invariably tend toward disorder.
         o CF001.2. The second law of thermodynamics, and the trend to disorder, is universal.
         o CF001.3. Instructions are necessary to produce order.
         o CF001.4. The second law is about organized complexity, not entropy.
         o CF001.5. Evolution needs an energy conversion mechanism to utilize energy.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Short answer: nothing in entropy or thermodynamics prohibits evolution.

   
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,23:04   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,13:40)
Do you really think I don't know what you posted about the mechanism of evolution? Are you really unaware that much has been written to refute that? Are you unaware that while it might sound good it might not stand up to scrutiny? I mean, what was the point in assuming I didn't know that mutations are considered to be the driving force of evolution? If you didn't read my post, why throw in your two cents? I clearly stated it isn't adequate, and I think it is a wrong turn that the theory took, and its salvation lies in rethinking that.

A-a-a-a-n-n-n-d... the bullshit flag comes out again.  It's very easy to SAY something doesn't work but let's look at this another way.  I don't want you to "disprove" evolution to me.  What I would like is some of your criticism applied to a real situation.

The dreaded nylon eating bacteria is quoted and cited often.  Here's an experimental write-up and result.
Emergence of Nylon Oligomer Degradation Enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through Experimental Evolution
 
Quote
Experimental Proposal
In this study, we investigated the possibility of creating a new metabolic activity that would degrade the Ahx oligomer in a strain that is not inherently capable of such degradation.
...
Some Experimental Results
After the cells accumulated the required genetic alteration to make a cryptic region active, cells grew in the nylon oligomer medium. The high frequency (1023) of the hypergrowing mutants of parental strain PAO1 on medium containing Ahx might be a result of a high mutation rate under the condition of starvation.
...
Experimental Conclusion
In the present study, it was shown that microorganisms can acquire an entirely new ability to metabolize xenobiotic compounds such as a by-product of nylon manufacture through the process of adaptation.


Now comes the hard part.  I think you said that you disagree with the evolutionary mechanisms that the experimenters used in deriving their conclusions in this study.  However the study has measurements and data that I think both you and I (and the board) can agree are accurate.  Things like growth rate, controls, chemical balances, etc.

Please quickly parse the paper (only 2 pages long) and tell me;
1) Which mechanism cited you disagree with.
2) What mechanism you think is occurring to explain the data presented.


Now comes the HARDER part (which I'm not asking at present but which is still a valid point).  Apply your mechanism to all the other studies that assert a similar phenomena and see if your mechanism has explanatory power over ALL these cases.

Your assertions about mutations can only be valid if your explanations have descriptive power over ALL the evidence.

Mike PSS

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,23:14   

Re "[...] a species barrier [...]"
Re "Firstly I keep quite up to date with the literature and currently there is absolutely no evidence of this barrier,"

Plus, doesn't the alleged barrier imply a sudden jump, in contrast to the expected accumulation of small changes over many generations. The barrier between species is between species that separated a long time ago, and have been accumulating separate changes for all that time.

Henry

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,23:25   

Quote
Short answer: nothing in entropy or thermodynamics prohibits evolution.


I agree. It's a very interesting consequence of thermal physics, but like any physical theory, it makes a strong statement when it's applicable. If what you observe differs from what you predict, either the theory is wrong, or your assumptions are wrong. In the case of SLOT, you can bet on the latter.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,00:41   

Sorry, not trying to derail this thread but I have a couple of easy questions for you Avo:

1. Are you religious? and if so:
2. What doctrines of your religion are you defending with your anti-scienceish stance?
3. What might make me accept your particular flavor of whatever it is you do with your religion?  last one was hard to write and encompass all the possible replies. an example would be:
"The xian god is real because my dad read their book to me when I was little. Therefore I am certain of the book's accuracy."
Or something along those lines. I would hope for something more substantial. I'm wondering because I have lots of ideas about god but I couldn't use those ideas to get enough strength to go tilting at your particular winmills. It seems to me like you'd make a better case if you gave me good reason to think you might be on to something on a different track. I like to think of us as mushrooms popping up out of the universal mycelium-but with eyes, opposable thumbs and an emotive capacity to experience myself.

That idea is a sort of a simplification of course. It's for those of you who aren't ready for the whole truth. That truth needs to be revealed in stages. Like an onion. An onion. Layers.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,00:47   

Don,
Quote
Why can't you tell me which "features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design", and why?
One reason is that the barrage comes too thick and fast. I go to work and find more than two pages. Even if I answer just the more pressing nonsense, it'll take hours. I am not sure why my giving an overview of what sorts of articles and books have influenced me is so illegitimate. I think there are many IC systems. Blood clotting is a good one, the flagellum, the cell itself, perhaps DNA/RNA. I don't have "my" theory of ID.

Improvius,

I seem to remember reading that bit you quoted from, but the bit wasn't long enough for me to evaluate his point. Yes, I've seen the claim that NDE isn't falsifiable. Tell me why it is. You want my hypothetical tests for ID. I don't thin I am qualified to come up with that. But it is odd that the folks here spend so much time perusing UD and seem to get so little out of it. Because from time to time I have certainly seen ideas on how to falsify, and some possible experiments, and some predictions. I never intended to be a one person encyclopedia of knowledge about ID. There are others far better than me. Right now there is a promising discussion started by Sal Cordova with Caligula over Haldane's and some related issues that looks very promising. Some interesting papers are cited, and I do want to make some time to follow it. Oddly, Salvador mentions that when he goes to PT, he tends to get barraged with vitriol. Now Salvador just happens to be one of the more refined, and one of the more intelligent people you'll come across. What's going on that someone of his calibre gets barraged with vitriol? And despite everyone claiming that I've got a thin skin, I disagree. I've been on boards for Buddhism, Christianity, philosophy, enlightenment, even politics/Islam, and I've never seen the prejudice and hyena-like behavior that goes on here.

Why the intense emotion? It's all good my friends. Take a deep breath. Science will do very well, knowledge will increase, and no one's life is in danger.

Louis,

Oh, it is true that the terms you used were for GoP but the implication was that they were for me as well. Also, I was annoyed you were calling me a troll when I had just arrived. It didn't occur to me that you actually thought I might be him or some other troll in disguise. And I admit I was squinting when I read your posts. One does that when a lot of mud is flinging about.
I thought the spitting baccy meant I was a redneck. I'm not, but I am an aspiring hillbilly. The citing of fundamentalism is not projection, and I do not retract it. One can be of any persuasion and be a fundamentalist. Even a liberal.
Oh, and you can dispense with the him/her/it. I really am a normal female, not a hermaphrodite or anything.

In short, your gracious explanations are as graciously accepted.

Serendipity,

Quote
I gave a mathematical (albeit layman) critique of Dembski's usage of his own mathematical formula in application to the complexity of flagellum. Does it need to be expanded more for your benefit?
I'll have to reread it. You know I don't do math and I can't remember if yours was over my head. I have read a few of Dembski's papers and liked them, but I shy away from his books because of the math arguments.

JohnW

It isn't so that I don't like the theory of evolution. I don't think it is true, and I find the whole drama fascinating. Some sort of unfoldment of life IS true.

BWE,
Quote
Would you care to deconstruct this comment with me?
What I meant by my comment (science would not progress if Louis got his way) is that there is this human group tendency, what Nietzche called the herd instinct, to stifle those in disagreement with the currently held paradigm, whatever it might be;  it has happened in science often enough; while new discoveries are often made by mavericks. If the paradigm defenders got their way, we'd have the sun going around the earth.

Quote
It's one of the two words in his "theory". You'd think hi definition would be pretty unambiguous. This is a weak reply.
No, in fact in the longest post by Febble she even brings up what he really means by intelligence. Without seeing both in context, we can't know where the wording went wrong. It's possible Dembski goofed, and wrote something unclear, but it seemed pointless to me to argue that Dembski meant something we all know he didn't mean. However, as a stepping off point for her counterarguments, it served well enough.

Quote
Boy, so do I. It doesn't google well.
Silly BWE, it was me of course. That was the point. It's on the LUCA thread.
I don't know what you meant by this:
Quote
You are aware that if you hadn't recieved xian ideas from OTHER PEOPLE, you wouldn't have recieved them at all?


Quote

Do you think you are open-minded?

Yes, BWE.

Don, I don't think we should get sidetracked into falsification. hafta at least make some attempt to focus.

Oh, Louis, I never meant that eugenics was a part of Darwinism, I considered it a opportunistic misuse. My point was that Lenny expects me to answer for the likes of Johnson. Let him answer for some bad evolutionists.
Quote
Oh and btw give me just one good reason that anyone should take the comments of Dembski et all seriously when the entirety of working scientists in the relevant fields of science to those comments don't take them at all seriously and have openly refuted them?
I think the problems in evo theory are growing rather than diminishing, I think that some evo's are as biased in their way as the Christians in theirs, and I don't think that the criticisms of the ID works have really hit the nail on the head. And I am somewhat, but not terribly, impressed by majority opinions.

The burden of proof rests equally.

Occam and Deadman,

My motive in making the assignments was to distribute the work load a little. Since it's ten against one here, I can't do all the homework.

The last time I was here I tried to focus just on the flagellum. I urged people to read Mike Gene's essay because it is inspiring and far more detailed than the chapter in Behe's book. No one seemed to want to. I find the part describing the assembly particularly good. I even cut and paste parts of it in for people. I also reread and printed up The Flagellum Unspun, and Still Spinning Just Fine, plus a follow up to that last. I spend hours and hours on it! I marked those pages up and cut and paste some more. Now Russell says I'm a liar for saying no one read that stuff, maybe he did and if so I apologize.

Hey Occam, you accuse me of trying to convince other people to dislike TOE, but I got challenged. I didn't start it.

Oh, this is getting long. I'll just post it.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,01:39   

Nuts. I haven't read the Luca thread. I kind of avoided the old GoP threads. To nutty for me.

What is a  little surprising to me is that you actually said that. Just because I'm amazed, I'll quote it again:
Quote
Just when I think I've got ahold of a true idea, I later realize that we just have no way of knowing much of anything. Or maybe we do, but when we think we know, we often don't, and there isn't much of a way to tell that we're in an ignorant state of false ideas. If we're lucky, we figure it out after the fact.
Yes, I think there is an obvious need for God as an explanation for existence. There is no other explanation, although what the nature of this God might be is up for conjecture.
As to whether the universe has purpose, I tend to sort of think so, but we might be out of our ken.

But there are other explanations. Better ones in fact.  That is why I asked you the last questions in my post above.

My quote that you quoted and then quoted your own quote as a quoted response was:
Quote
I second this. My pent up rage toward xians is in a pretty small pen and doesn't need much tending but I am mildly offended by a group making claims about god, heaven, morality and the like as if they know for sure.
So, that's an ok answer except that it isn't. You are claiming that there is no way of knowing anything (even through science I suppose) but then saying that that makes you think "there is an obvious need for God as an explanation for existence. There is no other explanation". Which seems like knowing something that you claimed you couldn't know despite knowing that you don't know. Or was that simply supposing that you don't know? Anyway, that is less salient given the rest of your sentence which reads:
"although what the nature of this God might be is up for conjecture."

And I am asking: is conjecture different from knowing? Because, if it is, then it seems to me like you are merely pointing out that to know you know a thing is unknowable, so we can only suppose we don't know because we can't know that we don't know but in our conjecture of not knowing we can't make any claims, scientific or otherwise which of course ought to include religion. Am I making myself clear?

That brings me right round again to my questions in the aforementioned recent post of mine which I will restate again here:

1. Are you religious? and if so:
2. What doctrines of your religion are you defending with your anti-scienceish stance?
3. What might make me accept your particular flavor of whatever it is you do with your religion?  last one was hard to write and encompass all the possible replies. an example would be:
"The xian god is real because my dad read their book to me when I was little. Therefore I am certain of the book's accuracy."
Or something along those lines. I would hope for something more substantial. I'm wondering because I have lots of ideas about god but I couldn't use those ideas to get enough strength to go tilting at your particular winmills. It seems to me like you'd make a better case if you gave me good reason to think you might be on to something on a different track. I like to think of us as mushrooms popping up out of the universal mycelium-but with eyes, opposable thumbs and an emotive capacity to experience myself.

That idea is a sort of a simplification of course. It's for those of you who aren't ready for the whole truth. That truth needs to be revealed in stages. Like an onion. An onion. Layers.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,01:53   

Improvius,

You want a prediction in the form of an if-then statement. This is interesting, but I will have to think about it. Remember, I'm not a scientist and not in the habit of setting up experiments, writing articles, or applying for grants.
Quote

I'm just curious - do you think that our planet is or has ever been in or near a state of equilibrium?
I wouldn't think so. Before it was a planet maybe.

Quote
log(1000) = log(10x10x10) = log(10)+log(10)+log(10) = 3
Oh, dear, things are just getting worse.

Now Deadman, I can go through and focus on certain arguments for ID or against evo, but what was wrong with citing several works and saying the arguments within convinced me? It seems to me there are about 10 or 20 of them.
When I read Berlinski's critique of the Nelson-Pilger paper, I actually first ran across on the net the criticisms of his paper, [having never heard of any of it] which I think was by 5 people, and their criticisms seemed quite good, so that whoever this Berlinski character was, I decided not to bother with him at all, and move on. However, somehow I did get started with his answer to their criticisms, and he blew them out of the water.
Of course, that isn't really evidence for ID, that just has been my experience that when I actually see the big guns arguing, I find the ID side much more compelling.

Yeah, Kaufmann is interesting, and after all he isn't an IDist. So like I said yesterday, things are very interesting, and getting more so. Things are heating up!

Oh, and Deadman, ain't nothin wrong with my incredulity button, I find it a right handy tool I wouldn't be without. 'Course, it doesn't help a lot with faith.

Ghost,
Quote
One problem is that Denton himself has repudiated much of the arguments in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. There are other problems with the book which I'll get to tonight. Deadman's links are certainly worth a look.
Yes, they are and I hope to find the time. I don't quite see that he repudiated it.  I have both books, and last night I reread a 2002 essay of his called An anti-Darwinian Intelletual Journey: Biological Order as an Inherent Property of Matter.
In light of the data you present, why do you suggest focusing on Denton's book?

Lenny,
Quote

And you intend to, uh, actually READ them . .  ?
I mostly skip over your jabs, but yes, I have already read them.
Oh! He said ID was full of crap and left DI? Where's the scoop on that?
Do you also realize that he considers the entire cosmos teleological, with human beings the inevitable and intended ultimate end point?

I think the Kansas thing and the Miller textbook thing are both true and are just different data.

Mike,
I do like learning most anything. I think my main question is can we not see the law(s) of entropy at work in every day situations. The very fact that when the organism dies, the forces that work against it cease, allowing entropy to increase, seems to validate my point.
In light of the fact that Don comes along and says that nothing about entropy or thermodynamics prohibits evolution, it seems my intentions are misunderstood, although I've stated them a few times. I do not think entropy prohibits evolution. Information theory might, but not entropy. My interest in it was as I said, general interest in how things work. I think of entropy in a yin-yang kind of way. If entropy is yin, what is the yang?

  
k.e.



Posts: 40
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,02:06   

Quote
In light of the fact that Don comes along and says that nothing about entropy or thermodynamics prohibits evolution, it seems my intentions are misunderstood, although I've stated them a few times. I do not think entropy prohibits evolution. Information theory might, but not entropy. My interest in it was as I said, general interest in how things work. I think of entropy in a yin-yang kind of way. If entropy is yin, what is the yang?


What a relief.... I'm glad you have decided that.(giggle)

I hope you can do a better job than Dembski and Sal 'Sancho Panzo' Cordova on the info theory. If you thought Entropy was easy ....'info theory' should be a slam dunk for you.

Any formulae?

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,02:22   

Quote
I think of entropy in a yin-yang kind of way. If entropy is yin, what is the yang?


Temperature.  From thermo, the change in internal energy divided by the change in entropy is exactly the temperature (at constant volume and particle number). There's lots of info on thermodynamic potentials available to elucidate this more. Remember that these are all statistical quantities, you're assuming that there's some underlying distribution which is characterized generally by internal energy, entropy, pressure, volume, particle number, and chemical potential. Changing some of these quantities causes heat(energy) to flow in or out of the system, and we can draw conclusions about the energy transfer.
I apologize if my logarithm discussion didn't make much sense. The main point was that when you tack on another system, the entropy increases additively rather than by multiplication ( S_total = S_A+S_B rather than S_total = S_A x S_B ).

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,02:24   

Quote
I think the problems in evo theory are growing rather than diminishing, I think that some evo's are as biased in their way as the Christians in theirs, and I don't think that the criticisms of the ID works have really hit the nail on the head. And I am somewhat, but not terribly, impressed by majority opinions.

The burden of proof rests equally.


We know you think this Avo. One thing we know that you don't (appear to) know is that the burden of proof doesn't rest equally NOW. It might have done about 2 or 3 centuries before the present (it didn't even then, but for the sake of argument let's say it did) but it really doesn't now.

If (note conditional tense) IDC and evolutionary biology were equally supported scientific theories both developed recently then the burden of proof would be (at least roughly) equal. This is simply not the case. Evolutionary ideas in biology predate Charlie Darwin (all the way back to the Ancient Greeks at least), old Chuckie just got a lot of it right.  ("Just", one of the foremost intellectual acheivements of our species is "just" getting it right!;) Every, and I do mean EVERY experiment done and accurate observation made has supported evolutionary biology. Sure the theories that comprise evolutionary biology have been modified over the years, this is what we call progress in science. We change things on the basis of the evidence. The whinings of Dembski et al are really nothing more than a restatement of ideas already tried and already failed.

This is why people get a bit moody with creationists. In one sense there is an awesome amount of arrogance from people like yourselves: I don't know much science but I know it's all wrong about topic X. This is not a sense I necessarily think is the case, all I am saying is SOME people see your comments this way. I'm not one of them btw.  In another sense we who actually DO science try pretty bloody hard to know what we're talking about BEFORE we talk about it, we're not perfect and not always successful but we do try. The comments of Dembski and chums are not new news to scientists. They are very very old w(h)ine in new bottles. We've heard them and refuted them before, stamping your feet and claiming it's all very significant when a) you don't really know what you're talking about (self admittedly) and b) those people who DO know what they're talking about have pointed out the problems with these ideas already. This part is merely an explanation of possibly why some people might get irritated, nothing more. Please be aware that things like "blood clotting is IC" and "DNA/RNA are IC" are claims we've heard before many times and claims that a) aren't true to start with and b) have been demonstrated so many times. I really suggest the T.O.Index to creationist claims as a good reading point for a lot of the old hat we encounter.

One thing about you Avo really amuses me. It's actually not something just about you personally, you just exhibit it, but lots more people do it. This is not an insult btw, more a compliment. You have an excellent and very healthy scepticism. This is something I think is great, I'm a massively sceptical person too. Science as a process can be thought of the practice of not automatically trusting the words of experts or authorities. In the words of the motto of the oldest scientific society in the world, the Royal Society, "On the words of no one" (Latin: "Nullius in verbia"). You REALLY don't have to trust the words of evolutionary biologists, in fact I absolutely insist you don't. What I DO insist you do is go out and find out about evolutionary biology for yourself. You can go to university, do the work, pass the exams, go and do a PhD and actually perform original research. YOU, Avocationist, can prove evolutionary biology wrong. A bit of advice though, the Dembski/Behe/Johnson/Gene/Denton/Berlinski route is a non-starter, it's an already wrong dead end. Evolutionary biology MIGHT be wrong but please have the humility to familiarise yourself with the subject beyond creationist tracts before you claim this. Please try to be aware that for evolutionary biology to be wrong in the way you think it is, a really rather large number of things that you would find uncontroversial would also be wrong. That alone should give you pause.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,02:27   

BWE,

Quote
1. Are you religious? and if so:
2. What doctrines of your religion are you defending with your anti-scienceish stance?
3. What might make me accept your particular flavor of whatever it is you do with your religion?  last one was hard to write and encompass all the possible replies. an example would be:
"The xian god is real because my dad read their book to me when I was little. Therefore I am certain of the book's accuracy."
Or something along those lines. I would hope for something more substantial. I'm wondering because I have lots of ideas about god but I couldn't use those ideas to get enough strength to go tilting at your particular windmills. It seems to me like you'd make a better case if you gave me good reason to think you might be on to something on a different track. I like to think of us as mushrooms popping up out of the universal mycelium-but with eyes, opposable thumbs and an emotive capacity to experience myself.

That idea is a sort of a simplification of course. It's for those of you who aren't ready for the whole truth. That truth needs to be revealed in stages. Like an onion. An onion. Layers.


I am not religious. I am not antiscience. Even when I was very young, I used to say, 'astronomy is like theology for me.' I guess you forgot, but when I was here I held out the most optimistic expectations for what science will discover, which is to say I think it will penetrate to at least some extent into spiritual realms that most people now consider to be off limits to science. Science is the study of reality, and reality is God. All I care about is what's true.

I don't know that I have any doctrines, unless they be my own conclusions, some more tentative than others. I believe that God is everything, absolutely everything. I came to this conclusion myself, but years later found out it is also Hindu. So I am a monist, but it was years before I heard the term. The interesting question for me is, since what we call matter and ourselves are natural unfurlings of God, does that mean that matter always manifests or is it a choice or a periodicity?

I guess I do have a problem with the idea of unplanned or unguidedness, because I don't like to think there is no mind of God. However, I also don't believe in a personal God, and that is somewhat hard to reconcile, so that's an issue I struggle with.
Especially since I am in love with God! When I don't have things figured out, I just patiently wait for resolution and deeper understanding.
I do have one inkling about how the mind of God could be. Since God is the totality of everything, that everything could have an overarching mind. The way many religions describe God, it's as if he is a separte person who is essentially, here but not there. There but not here.

My religion is a religion of one. I contemplate. I search for truth and deeper wisdom. I think in terms of consciousness. People are, for the most part, in a state of partial unconsciousness. I seek to increase my consciousness. This is nondifferent from knowing God. Our individuality within this unity is a mystery, it keeps me fascinated and fulfilled; that is why I think we can know and have a relationship with God; it is the bridal chamber Jesus spoke of.

I love the beauty and truth in all religions, and deplore the negativity which keep people stuck. I have no need for any particular religion because I am free. I have no intermediates, not faith, not dogma.

There are a few things I identify with: Sufism, monism, panentheism, taoism. I have an attraction-repulsion with Buddhism, a very strange relationship with Buddhism. Buddhism is deceptive in its simplicity. It bothers me because I find it cold and it amazes me because of its purity. I learn from it. It has been called the most atheistic of religions and yet it may take you closest. Because concepts separate you from God, and Buddhism is a relentless stripping.

I don't practice meditation, but I do read some of the writings.

Perhaps I haven't been fair to Christianity. It was Christianity that set me free. I am terribly critical and ever grateful.

  
Serendipity



Posts: 28
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,03:21   

Quote (creeky belly @ Jan. 24 2007,11:46)
I was simply making the point that subsystems that are not in thermal equilibrium can experience a decrease in entropy. dS/dt for the entire isolated system, which can be expressed as the sum of the entropy of all of the subsystems, must necessarily be positive or 0. Disorder here is the sense that the number of states of the system reaches a maximum at thermal equilibrium. In the case of a gas at a pressure separated by wall with a vacuum, the number of states initially is much smaller than after the divider has been lifted and the system has been allowed to relax into thermal eq. The system naturally picks the state with highest entropy, which will be a state in which the gas particles are distributed evenly in the entire box. It is an irreversible process (since the entropy changes), and therefore must be a state of high disorder as I've defined it.

These same systems could experience reverse isocaloric/adiabatics - making an isentropic process. Which of course causes no change in entropy.

Sorry its taken so long to reply to this: I was reading back over the thread and picked it up.

Serendipity.

--------------
Without question or false modesty, no success has owed more to serendipity than ours. (Fischer)

  
demallien



Posts: 79
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,03:23   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 24 2007,12:40)
Demallion,
Quote
The big problem with your use of entropy, is that you wish to refer to some properties of entropy in a closed system.
So does entropy have any effect on a biological organism? What about when it dies?

Do you really think I don't know what you posted about the mechanism of evolution? Are you really unaware that much has been written to refute that? Are you unaware that while it might sound good it might not stand up to scrutiny? I mean, what was the point in assuming I didn't know that mutations are considered to be the driving force of evolution? If you didn't read my post, why throw in your two cents? I clearly stated it isn't adequate, and I think it is a wrong turn that the theory took, and its salvation lies in rethinking that.

Yup, I really do think that you don't know about what I "posted about the mechanisms of evolution".  You see, in my post, I hammered the fact, repeatedly, that each and every mechanism is observed in the lab, and in the wild, and that we can even say the same about all of the mechanisms working together.

You say that much has been written to refute "that".  Oh yeah?  I'm fascinated by the idea that someone's opinion can "refute" reality.  In case you missed it, I'll say it again: each and every mechanism involved in evolution has been confirmed by experiments.  They are real, and no amount of handwaving can refute that.  You need to stop and think about the implications of this.

You say that random mutation isn't adequate.  I refer you again to the part where I discussed bacteria developing resistance to drugs.  How do you think that they develop this resistance?  I'll give you a hint: it starts with 'random', and ends in 'mutation'.  Again, verified in the lab.  The fact that you assert that it isn't adequate in no way refutes the observed reality that it IS adequate.  

You are apparently unaware of all of this, to judge by your posts (either that or you think that fine words trump reality).  That is why I decided to "throw in my two cents" - it was an (apparently vain) attempt to help you correct your ignorance on the topic.

  
Serendipity



Posts: 28
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,03:24   

Quote
If it is from you, then it means you find the arguments of Denton, Dembski, Behe, Meyer insultingly simplistic.


I find having to continuously educate creationists because they refuse to substantiate their positions and reverse the proceedings to have others do their homework for them - insulting.

Serendipity.

--------------
Without question or false modesty, no success has owed more to serendipity than ours. (Fischer)

  
Serendipity



Posts: 28
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,03:31   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Jan. 24 2007,14:36)
Avocationist: I'd also like to politely ask that if you have specific disagreements with what I posted, that you'd at least hold off a bit on those and instead focus on PRECISELY what evidence from ID you find so compelling?
I'm hoping for something a bit more substantive than arguments from incredulity and "because I said so." Arguments that actually have a bit of science in them are preferred in science, I should think. Thanks.

Science would help a lot in this discussion. The cynic in me however asks "what's the chances of that happening?"

Serendipity.

--------------
Without question or false modesty, no success has owed more to serendipity than ours. (Fischer)

  
Serendipity



Posts: 28
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,03:36   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 24 2007,22:39)
Short answer: nothing in entropy or thermodynamics prohibits evolution.

All biological processes apply thermodynamics. I'll perhaps repeat that.. in bold.. all biological processes apply thermodynamics. Changes to organisms - the measure of its state: first law. The changes within that state: second law. The human body ingesting food and converting it to energy: first and second law. So I totally agree with your statement.

--------------
Without question or false modesty, no success has owed more to serendipity than ours. (Fischer)

  
Serendipity



Posts: 28
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,03:54   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 25 2007,00:47)
Serendipity,

Quote
I gave a mathematical (albeit layman) critique of Dembski's usage of his own mathematical formula in application to the complexity of flagellum. Does it need to be expanded more for your benefit?
I'll have to reread it. You know I don't do math and I can't remember if yours was over my head. I have read a few of Dembski's papers and liked them, but I shy away from his books because of the math arguments.

I thank you very much for that comment. No, I actually didn't know you don't do maths well. So I will try and formulate it into something non mathematical (if possible: remembering Dembski is a mathematician) while having a cup of coffee.

Serendipity
~musing over a cup~

--------------
Without question or false modesty, no success has owed more to serendipity than ours. (Fischer)

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,04:05   

Quote (avocationist @ Jan. 25 2007,02:27)
Science is the study of reality, and reality is God. All I care about is what's true.
Thus begins an interesting journey. You begin by defining god as "what is". Next you claim to care only about what is true. I assume you mean true as in the platonic ideal.

 
Quote
I believe that God is everything, absolutely everything.
I'm with you so far except that word "believe". It seems like you are making a leap of faith. With your definition of god, I don't see what belief has to do with it. The word "belief" smacks of intellectual laziness.

 
Quote
The interesting question for me is, since what we call matter and ourselves are natural unfurlings of God, does that mean that matter always manifests or is it a choice or a periodicity?
And here, looking back to your first statement, I assume science therefore can study god?

 
Quote
I guess I do have a problem with the idea of unplanned or unguidedness, because I don't like to think there is no mind of God. However, I also don't believe in a personal God, and that is somewhat hard to reconcile, so that's an issue I struggle with.
Does this struggle influence what is true? Does that muddy the ideal?

 
Quote
Especially since I am in love with God!
She is quite a looker isn't she?

 
Quote
I do have one inkling about how the mind of God could be. Since God is the totality of everything, that everything could have an overarching mind. The way many religions describe God, it's as if he is a separte person who is essentially, here but not there. There but not here.
Is this inkling based on any evidence?

 
Quote
My religion is a religion of one. I contemplate. I search for truth and deeper wisdom. I think in terms of consciousness.
Contemplation does seem to lead to a different set of truths. Maybe on an internal dimension rather than an external dimension?

 
Quote
People are, for the most part, in a state of partial unconsciousness. I seek to increase my consciousness. This is nondifferent from knowing God.
So, is god only knowable through contemplation?

 
Quote
Our individuality within this unity is a mystery, it keeps me fascinated and fulfilled; that is why I think we can know and have a relationship with God; it is the bridal chamber Jesus spoke of.
Little bit confused now. So, in this case, there is no such thing as a false idol, right? Because god is everything so if I hump a goat, I'm getting it on with god?

 
Quote
I love the beauty and truth in all religions, and deplore the negativity which keep people stuck. I have no need for any particular religion because I am free. I have no intermediates, not faith, not dogma.
Free of religion? Do you think jesus rose from the dead? Really and physically?

 
Quote
There are a few things I identify with: Sufism, monism, panentheism, taoism. I have an attraction-repulsion with Buddhism, a very strange relationship with Buddhism. Buddhism is deceptive in its simplicity. It bothers me because I find it cold and it amazes me because of its purity. I learn from it. It has been called the most atheistic of religions and yet it may take you closest. Because concepts separate you from God, and Buddhism is a relentless stripping.
A relentless stripping of false idols until you are left with none.

 
Quote
I don't practice meditation, but I do read some of the writings.
Buddhist writing? Is it possible to use thought and words and symbols and ideas to strip away samsara?

 
Quote
Perhaps I haven't been fair to Christianity. It was Christianity that set me free. I am terribly critical and ever grateful.

well well. What did you get free of? Are you critical now? Critical of what?

Do you think I should be a xian? Is there any reason I should?

Now, why do you dislike the idea of common descent? If god is simply what is, then why name her at all? Why is understanding god always a prerequisite for not believing in evolution? Do you think it is bad science?

You really should read Gould.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Cedric Katesby



Posts: 55
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,04:07   

Advocationist said...

                                 
Quote
As to your request that I put my theory in my own words, I consider that a silly time waster.

So, your own words are a "silly time waster"?  Gosh, you seem to have a very blunt self-assessment of yourself. ???
                             
Quote
Does each of you have your own personal theory of evolution? would you feel called upon to improve upon, say, Mayr's def?

Avocationist, I'm not asking you to re-invent the wheel.  I'm not asking you to become a scientist and bury yourself in a lab for twenty years. I'm asking you to explain to me how YOU understand the "the scientific 'theory' of ID".
Once upon a time you presumeably didn't know about ID. Right?
But then you found out about ID? Yeah?
So you investigated the scientific theory of ID.
You perhaps read a book or two on the subject and checked out a couple of ID friendly web-sites.
After serious, level-headed research and reflection you found ID richly satisfying in a scientific sort of way (because as we all know ID is a scientific theory and DEFINITELY NOT a religious apologetics club full of people who don't know what they are talking about).
All correct so far?
Well, thats great.  You now subscribe to the Theory of ID, bully for you.
(Insert image of Dempski and DaveScot giving the "thumbs up"  as a sign of support in the background)
                   
Quote

What I gave you was plenty of my own thoughts and ideas, as well as a quick run down of where I'm coming from, what I've read and considered important. You want to play a little game on your terms.

You gave me your thoughts and ideas? ...Ummm, OK...(?!?)
(To tell you the truth I'm kinda busy with my own thoughts and ideas.  How about I don't burden you with my thoughts and ideas and you extend me the same courtesy?)
You told me where you're coming from? ....Gee, umm (??) Ok, thanks..I guess. ???
Little game?
Advocationist, seriously, are you paranoid?
I'm trying to extend you every courtesy to hear what you have to say.  I gave you the scenario of the party because I thought it might help you state your case.
You are somebody who 'gets' ID.  You find it intellectually satisfying in a way that others here cannot understand.  I'm asking you to explain how it all works for you.  This being a science web-site and ID being a 'scientific theory' (insert queasy feeling in pit of stomach) I don't understand your coyness about you rattling off a few sentences on how you think the "theory of ID" works.
             
Quote

The bit about if I was at a party is actually a good way to put it, but I am not sure I'd bother at the party. I'd give a very vague rundown...

Oh, please, please, please bother. :p  Just for me!
Look, let me get you a fresh drink and one of those cheesy thing on a cracker!  Ah, here's a nice comfy chair for you to sit in and get comfortable.  Do sit down.  There, how's that?  So...this very vague rundown of yours...Sound absolutely FASCINATING!!!
Do tell me about all about this new scientific theory of ID.  Why, there was a news item about it on FoxNews only just last week!  As it happens, I remember a few of my science classes from high school so, go ahead and and hit me with what you've got. I'm all ears.
         
Quote

I don't have "my" theory of ID.

Oh, I know you didn't "invent" ID theory.  It's not like I saw you across the room and said to myself "Wow, there's the whole gang of the Discovery Institute stuffed awkwardly in the body of a woman at a party like some third-rate sci-fi movie".
But you do understand ID theory, right? After all, thats why you support it and contribute to ID blogs, yeah?
Ok, let's get started....
Oh no. That's OK.  You can tell me about your sources and reference books at some other party.  No need to give me a bibliography.  In your own words and at you own pace will be fine.  Feel free to use any scientific argument for ID that you choose.
Vague rundown, eh? Oh, I'm sure you're just being modest.  Go ahead, I'm all ears....
(waits patiently) :)

  
Altabin



Posts: 308
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,04:43   

I'm not going to address any of the scientific issues here - others are more qualified than I am to do that!  But what you have to say about your religious sentiments interests me.  I'm picking out two or three passages (not in their original order):

       
Quote
I believe that God is everything, absolutely everything. I came to this conclusion myself, but years later found out it is also Hindu. So I am a monist, but it was years before I heard the term.


       
Quote

There are a few things I identify with: Sufism, monism, panentheism, taoism.


       
Quote
I guess I do have a problem with the idea of unplanned or unguidedness, because I don't like to think there is no mind of God. However, I also don't believe in a personal God, and that is somewhat hard to reconcile, so that's an issue I struggle with.


There are a couple of reasons why this interests me.  First, when I do think about God, or the possibility of God, it's in the terms you describe in the first two quotes.  For me, God is either absolutely everything (and inseparable from everything), or nothing at all.  For many reasons (which I won't go into here - I'm sure you've been led to the same thoughts) the notion of a personal, "separable" God is absurd to me.  That is why I prefer to call myself a non-theist, rather than an atheist.  I'm not certain that the word "divine" has no reference, and I find Taoism, some Gnostic writings etc. to be very moving - to hit some truth which ordinary discourse doesn't reach. But I'm quite certain that there isn't a God after the Christian model.  I've found some food for thought in the past at the Scientific Pantheism website.


That is why I can understand the "struggle" you describe in the third quotation.  It is a real struggle, because the two ideas you are trying to hold in your head are incompatible.  Behe/Dembski type ID - which you seem to want to defend, irreducible complexity and all - absolutely requires an intelligence separate from the objects of design.  Yes, it might be a space alien, but it's still working as an intelligent agent utterly distinct from that which is being designed.

Whether you think of the Behe/Dembski designer as an alien or as something supernatural, all of the ID "theorists" are committed to dualism and division: something inert, lifeless, passive, being given form and life by something utterly different from it.  There is just no way to reconcile that with the monism that you've come to by other routes.   As I've said, I can empathize with your philosophical/religious position, and even share it to some extent.  It is an exhilirating view of the cosmos and the unity of all things.  Behe/Dembski ID, on the other hand, is a mean, unimaginative world-view.  They are the materialists, because they reduce God to a tinkerer in matter, fixing up bacteria much as a highly-skilled human engineer might do it; they simply cannot conceive that the divine may be bigger than any of their categories.

--------------

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,06:37   

Wow Altabin. That is one of the best posts i've seen. Seriously. The provincial sky-daddy is what I like to call that viewpoint. Eloquently stated.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
don_quixote



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,07:57   

{at a party}

Me: So, the theory of I.D., eh? What do you mean by that?

Avo: The theory of ID states that certain features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design.

Me: Fascinating! Which ones? And why?

Avo: Are you completely unaquainted with the literature? What have you read?

Me: I've never heard of it before, but you seem to think it explains natural phenomena well. I was just wondering which features of biological organisms and of the universe are best explained as being the result of intelligent design?

Avo:  I am not sure why my giving an overview of what sorts of articles and books have influenced me is so illegitimate.

Me: I'm wasn't asking you for a reading list, just for some examples.

Avo: I think there are many IC systems. Blood clotting is a good one, the flagellum, the cell itself, perhaps DNA/RNA.

Me: Okay, lets take blood clotting, as you seem to think it's a "good one". Why is blood clotting best explained as being the result of intelligent design?

[Cedric comes along with a Martini and some nibbles and shows Avo to a comfy sofa]

Me: Hey! What the...?

[Don follows them]

Cedric: So...this very vague rundown of yours...Sound absolutely FASCINATING!!! Do tell me about all about this new scientific theory of ID.  Why, there was a news item about it on FoxNews only just last week!  As it happens, I remember a few of my science classes from high school so, go ahead and and hit me with what you've got. I'm all ears.

========

Well then Avo, you now have some cheesy snacks (don't tell DaveScot!;)), a comfortable chair and the complete attention of two guys. Take it away!

Edit: damned emoticons!

  
Serendipity



Posts: 28
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,08:47   

Avocationist.

Dembski's proposition was concerning bacterial flagellum - escherichia coli (the genome e coli dna of 4.6-4.7 million base pairs representated of 400 genes). Dembski states in his book (No Free Lunch) that applying Darwinian mechanism then the bacterium flagellum evolved through Darwinian selection through a bacterium consisting of 0 flagellum, and for this to have occurred, they would have to be assembled and directed as opposed to chance modification. So utilising Behe's irreducible complexity that specific condtions rendered specific actions within the flagellum, then it would have to be specified. In order for such a complex mechanism to have such specification, then it ought to have been intelligently designed. (That's as simple as I can make his argument). The rotary mechanism of the flagellum is specified (Dembski's overall argument of design).

What about (using Behe's irreducible complexity) other functions of the flagellum? Such as the e coli genome and base pairs? Is the flagellum's specification merely reliant upon the rotary itself? Well umm NO. If we take the blueprint o a flagellum (e coli genome/dna molecular function) can it be stripped from the flagellum (referring to the other subsystems of the flagellum)? It can't. So is using Behe's irreducibly complex systemisation to create his specified complex system, valid in this argument? No. Because it is applying variables where there are none.

In a nutshell: Dembski takes into consideration the rotary of the bacterium, disjointly and rather casually ignoring its subsystems to create a system based on redefinition of scientific terminology to make things "fit".

Serendipity.

--------------
Without question or false modesty, no success has owed more to serendipity than ours. (Fischer)

  
don_quixote



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,09:12   

Avo said:

 
Quote
Don, I don't think we should get sidetracked into falsification. hafta at least make some attempt to focus.


The point you should bear in mind is that a scientific theory/hypothesis has to be falsifiable. I.D. isn't, therefore it's not science. AFDave has had this explained to him over the course of almost 500 comments at richarddawkins.net's forum. He still doesn't get it. He probably never will. I just hope that you're a little bit brighter that him, I really do.

  
heddle



Posts: 124
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,09:18   

Atlabin,

Quote
They [Behe and Dembski]are the materialists, because they reduce God to a tinkerer in matter, fixing up bacteria much as a highly-skilled human engineer might do it; they simply cannot conceive that the divine may be bigger than any of their categories.


Regardless of the truth of Behe/Dembski ID (and Dembski’s, based on faulty mathematics, is trivially false), you have not made any case that ID per se is incompatible with the “Christian” god.

Nothing at all precludes the “Christian” god, even with all his omni-attributes, from getting involved with minutiae, should he choose to do so. And describing God as personal and involved in the little details (such as one of my favorite stories, when Gideon is speaking with God and says “wait here while I get a present for you” and God replies “OK, I’ll wait.”) does not detract from those times when God acts in all his majesty.

I agree that ID is less compatible with new age Gnostic type ideas. But in the Christian model, we see time and time again that God is indeed a “tinkerer in matter.” So ID, in principle, does not belittle God.

On the other hand, the methods of the ID community and its leadership are absolutely incompatible with Christian living.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2007,09:22