AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: OgreMkV

form_srcid: OgreMkV

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.81.88.93

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: OgreMkV

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'OgreMkV%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #7

Date: 2009/10/07 14:53:40, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I hate to say it, there is a conflict between evolution and (Floyd's) 'Christianity'.  Because his version of (Floyd's) 'Christianity' is fundamentally flawed.

I also agree science and mathematics, not just evolution, causes major crisises of faith for those with (Floyd's) 'Christianity'.  I know, I was one.

That's one reason I'm an aethist now.  It because (Floyd's) 'Christianity' is so fundamentally wrong about everything that it is totally incompatible with reality.  Now, anyone with a functioning mind (as I happen to have), must look at the evidence and determine a course of action.  That course of action is to reject (Floyd's) 'Christianity'.  Unfortunately, for some, that requires rejecting all religion.

Of course, had the religion I grew up in, been a little more tolerant, rational, or... well...  Christian, then perhaps, I would be able to experience the wonder that is religion.

Please keep in mind that the supposed 'inerrency' of the bible is only one reason.  The other reason is... well... you Floyd... or people just like you.

People that are so arrogant that they will always be right no matter what evidence is presented.  People that are so righteous that they will tell some of the finest men and women I have ever know that they are doomed to hell because they do not believe that the Earth is 6000 years old.  People, like you, who have no moral obligation to tell the truth, because they speak for God.  People who continue to hold to ideas that have been debunked for years, if not decades, if not centuries, because it offends their personal belief.  People like Floyd who pick and choose their concepts to support whatever insane fantasy world they inhabit.  People who willfully destroy young minds because they want the glory that it is rightfully god's.  People who are so ignorant that they are incable of recognizing their own ignorance.

On second thought, it has nothing to do with science or evolution.  It has totally to due with people just like you Floyd.  

In my opinion, you are a very poor Christian.  You are so concerned with the bible that you forget to minister to those around you.  You are so concerned with being right that you forget the commandments to not bear false witness.  I've spent my life (37 plus years) with some amazing Christians and you aren't even worthy to clean their boots.

I choose to reject God and heaven, because if heaven is full of people like you, I'd rather spend eternity in hell.

So thank you Floyd, if I go to hell, then it's because of you and (Floyd's) 'Christianity'.  You have only yourself to blame for my 'fall'.

Sorry if I got off topic a bit.  

However, I think it's important that everyone and Floyd recognize that the entire argument is silly because everyone is using different definitions of Christianity.  

Of course, floyd is right... in HIS view of Chrisitianity, which, I think most everyone agrees, is not the common view held by the majority of people on the planet.  This is also, the point I was trying to make above...

(Floyd's) 'Christianity' is nuts.

Date: 2009/10/07 17:26:06, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,14:36)
VERY perceptive question there Robin.  Combine it with those evolutionist self-testimonies and the Big Five issues that you read earlier in the thread, and you will see for yourself that

(1) evolution is VERY capable of eroding and corroding Christian faith and therefore
(2) there is a good warrant to seriously consider (and in light of all the reasons taken together, to accept) the claim that Evolutin is Incompatible with Christianity.

Floyd, here's two questions for you

1) what do you mean by eroded and corroded?

2) What do you care if evolution is incompatible with (Flyod's) Chrisitanity?

Date: 2009/10/07 18:39:03, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 07 2009,18:24)
Quote
So thank you Floyd, if I go to hell, then it's because of you and (Floyd's) 'Christianity'.  You have only yourself to blame for my 'fall'.

Wow!   Me doing Ye Olde Divell's dirty work again, it seems.  (Force of habit, some would say.)

But let me say this for you, Ogre.  Like Quack, and like Nmgirl, you're speaking straight from your heart about where you're at and how you got there.  That's huge.  That's honest.  And I appreciate it.

However, there were one or two candid questions that came to mind while reading your personal testimony.  For example:
         
Quote
I've spent my life (37 plus years) with some amazing Christians and you aren't even worthy to clean their boots.

Hey, I'd be the first to agree with you, even though I don't even know who these people are that you're referring to.   No joke.

But the fact is that, by your own admission, you have REJECTED their faith in Jesus Christ just as much as you've rejected mine, despite their stellar example which (you claim) impressed you so much.  The obvious question, is, um, whyyyyy.

See, here's the deal Ogre.  My guess is that, come Judgment Day, if you try to hide behind MY skirts and plead, "Hey God, That Rotten Fundie Floyd Is The Real Reason Why I Spat In Christ's Face", God might just say to you, "Yeah bro, I'm on your side, that Rotten Fundie Floyd is nothing but a Wackadoodle Mess with a Backwards Clergy Collar.  I feel your pain dude."

But see, God already knows that you met some "Amazing" Christians who apparently showed you all the good stuff I failed to show you here.  

So what lame-bunny excuse are you gonna hand God on J-Day when He replays the video of how THEY impressed you with their example and their faith?   You gonna blame THEM as well, for your rejection of Jesus Christ?

Nope.  You'll just stand there, full of guilt, unable even to look God in the eye, knowing that you blew it all the way, standing there watching the "DOWN" button flashing on your personal Elevator.

Now, please please don't misunderstand, I'm not jumping on you.   This is NO attack on you, for like I suggested, I rather liked the way you spoke.  It was helpful and helped me to better understand where you're comin' from.  

But.....your own words have rationally left you WITHOUT any rational (let alone religious) excuse as to why you've "rejected all religion", including your rejection of the religion of the non-Floydish Christians that you claim you were impressed by.  

(And please note:  our lives are short as Hell, according to the rock band "Shooting Star."  You and I ain't got time for incorrect spiritual choices, aye?)

So you may want to think things over a bit.  If you choose to respond to this assessment, I'm listening.

Floyd Lee    :)

Thank you.  Yes I have rejected their beliefs, but not their faith and that's a huge difference.  See, in my mind, people like you have no faith.  You have to be right.  The people that I mentioned didn't have to be right, they had faith that everything was OK, regardless of the truth.

Now let me say, I've faced death and wasn't 100% pleased with my response.  However, if you ask me now what I would do if everything in the Bible is literally true and I stand before the throne of God...

then I've got to say, "You, sir, are a total jerk! Why did you lie to us?  Why did you allow religous wars in your name?  Why?"

Those aren't for you to answer floyd.

Date: 2009/10/07 19:08:08, Link
Author: OgreMkV
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin....840.DTL

I can't find the original article, but it's on Panda's thumb.

It's about how incompetant people can't even understand their own incompetance.  It's real science too.

I've just finished the entire thread.  Sigh...

Date: 2009/10/08 10:31:52, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,10:00)
Quote
What you believe Jesus to mean may not be the interpretation others ascribe to that alleged utterance.

Hmmm. there's always these alleged "other interpretations" that you allude to, but you guys can't seem to provide any of them in detail when asked.

I think we've already established that evolution is incompatible with (Floyd) Christianity.

We (meaning others) have established that the majority of Christians are not (Floyd) Christians.  

[I'd like to point out that Christianity* while the largest single religion in numbers, is still only about 1/3 of the entire population of the planet.  And by Christianity here, everything from Catholic to Quakers is included.  So it is very likely that Floyd will be very surprised when he meets Allah, or Buddah, or the greys.  http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html]

Back to the original point.  The burden is on you, as a minority opinion, to provide evidence that the pope (as leader of the largest single cult with a reasonably similar belief system to you) is wrong.  The burden is on you to explain why 13,000 clerics (that was the figure right?) are wrong.  The burden is on you... and you're going to need a lot more than 5 single sentences that have been shown to not be problems to anyone, except you.

So, I guess the question is, why are your statements problems for you and not for the pope (whom, as you stated, is Christian)/

Date: 2009/10/08 13:43:07, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,12:34)
Quote
You kept rambling on about how the Pope hadn't addressed them,

....Because you and others kept rambling on about how the Pope, as a Christian who accepts evolution under certain conditions (but not others), has somehow negated and neutralized each of the Big Five Incompatibilities as pointed out by professional scientist evolutionists.  

So I've been asking -- repeatedly & specifically --  how the Pope did that, and you seem to have no specific answers other than "the Pope accepts evolution."

Floyd, as a point to debating.  It's actually up to you to prove that your big 5 are required by the pope.  

This debate is about the incompatability of evolution with Christianity not about scienctists or about personal opinions or about anything else.

How's this for starters
Christiantity
1) the Bible is the only perfect rule for faith, doctrine, and conduct
2) the necessity of the new birth in Jesus Christ
3) the Church as a fellowship of believers.
4) a conscious dependence on the Holy Spirit.

Evolution
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."


Please point out where these two definitions are incompatible.
If these are not the definitions you use for Christianity, then post your definition of Christianity.

There are three requests for you in this post Floyd, please be so good as to answer them.

Date: 2009/10/08 15:24:32, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,15:16)
Quote
It's actually up to you to prove that your big 5 are required by the pope.
 
Even more basic than that, Ogre:  I need merely prove that the Big Five Incompatibilities EXIST.  

That task, I have carefully executed, one at a time.  Comparing published evolutionist statements one by one with the position given by the Bible texts.  (Remember, the Bible is my authority, not the Pope).  Supplying reasons why each incompatibility really IS an incomptability with Christianity.  There's five in all.

***
   
Quote
This debate is about the incompatability of evolution with Christianity not about scienctists or about personal opinions or about anything else.

Normally we all rely on scientists to tell us about evolution and what evolution actually entails or doesn't entail.  As you can see, your comrades in this forum have severely fallen away from that reliance, to the point of actually ignoring clear statements that actual working evolutionary scientists have published.  
But that's the wrong way to go.  One does not eliminate the incompatibilities by pretending that the evolutionists didn't say what they said.

And I've already shown that the incompatibilities are actually tied to evolution theory itself, not just somebody's "personal opinion."  For example, the Fourth Incompatibility (Death-Before-Adam) is based on the fact that evolution REQUIRES death to have been present at all times on this planet.  Period.  That's not even debatable.  
What you said about "successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions" absolutely *requires* that death appear in this world BEFORE the time the Bible said it appeared (exclusively after The Fall, not before).
That's how evolution, that's how natural selection, works.

Yet you have people around here talking like the Fourth incompatibility, the reality of the situation, doesn't even exist.  As if ignoring the problem makes it magically go away.

That's not rational, Ogre.  Not even slightly.

FloydLee

I didn't ask you to provide your big 5.  The question is why are they required by the pope.  Remember your the one instisting that this is important.  To quote the greatest scientist of our time "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".  

You are the only one I've ever seen with this big 5.  I've done a bit of reading on the subject.  So you are promoting it, it's up to you to provide the evidence.  Yelling louder is not evidence.

Finally.  In an attempt to actually keep the debate running, I've asked you two questions regarding the tennants of evolution and chrisitanity.  I would think that this would be your place to shine, but you fixated on a small part of my request and ignored anything like  an attempt at explanation.

Please, do answer my questions so we can actually get to the meat of this matter, instead of all this dancing around the edges.

Date: 2009/10/08 15:36:12, Link
Author: OgreMkV
After some consideration, let me expound upon my question.

Why do you and seemingly no other Christian (including all of the ones I have ever had the privilege of having a real debate with) REQUIRE that they accept your big 5?

So you accept the bible as literal truth 100%?

Date: 2009/10/08 22:56:13, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Reed @ Oct. 08 2009,22:00)
Quote (Dan @ Oct. 08 2009,19:02)
FL's three "objections" are really just diversions, to try to divert attention away from the fact -- proven above -- that evolution is compatible with Christianity.

My impression is that FLs definition of "incompatible" means "requires dissonance". IMO, that by itself falls within one of several reasonable interpretations of the phrase.

However, FL refused to define what he meant way back on page 5, and ignored my suggestion that he clarify, which doesn't say much for his interest in engaging in an honest discussion. Huge surprise  :p

Agreed, he's ignored any attempt to actually define what he's talking about.

I can't wait until he decides to do the next half.

Date: 2009/10/09 08:59:22, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,15:35)
Quote
I'd ask for definitions of three of the five words in the proposition "evolution is incompatible with christianity" before I even ventured an answer.

Well, we've already defined evolution.  I'm using Campbell-Reece's 2005 textbook definition of macroevolution and microevolution, (previously posted earlier), if anybody here has a question about what's being used when.  

(As you know, many evolutionists often use the word "evolution" without even defining the term.)

You already know what compatible/incompatible means, because some of you are tryin' real hard not to accept that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

And honestly?  You have a pretty good idea already of the beliefs that are involved with biblical Christianity and I've been careful to relate EACH of the four incompatibilities to a specific and important biblical Christian belief (God-as-required-explanation-for-origins, the Image-Of-God, etc.)

A basic definition of Christianity, indeed becoming a Christian, is as easy to do as reading and understanding John 3:16.  So it's no problem doing a basic definition, just look up one of the online dictionaries.

But like I said, I've already shown where each incompatibility corresponds to a foundational biblical Christian belief.

Here's the only statement I found where you even attemp to define anything.

You say Christianity is defined as reading and understanding John 3:16.  So please explain how John 3:16 incorporates your big 5 whatever they are.

Also, I read carefully the defintion of evolution that you provided and I see no mention of denying any god or gods.  Please provided and definition of evolution that “denies God”.  No, an interpretation of the definition to deny god is not enough, you’re a literalist remember.  The statement must use the words “denies that God is required”.

BTW: If you think science education in Texas is succesful, then you know nothing about education in Texas at all.

Date: 2009/10/09 09:25:38, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,09:05)
Quote
The fact that there exists a person who finds them completely compatible proves without further emendation that you are wrong in your claim.

Well, evolutionist Rosenhouse said it best:"The issue is whether they have a sound basis for their opinions."  
Merely stating that somebody exists who happens to believe they are compatible, is not rationally sufficient.  The question to be answered is always "why do they believe that."

Again Floyd, based on some pretty extensive research over the last decade... you are the only one promoting this meme.  It is up to you to provide the evidence.

It's not a question of do they have a sound basis for their opinions, it's the question of do you have a sound basis for your argument.

BTW: Kinda the point of America (and as you prove to anyone with a functioning brain), you don't have to have a sound basis for you opinions.  You do however have to have a lot of evidence to do what you are trying to do.

Date: 2009/10/09 10:51:24, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I'll chime in after CM.

BTW: Floyd, you also seem to not understand logic.

If p, then q does not automatically imply if not p, then not q.

because inverse positions can be false.

For example, statement #1: In biblical Christianity, God clearly is the Required Explanation for biological origins (including the evolutionary process.)  No exceptions. But with Evolution, God is clearly NOT a required explanation at all.

Let's shorten that to if god, then biology.  Is that reasonable?

The inverse is therefore not true.  If not god, then not biology.  Because there exists a sufficient explanation for biology without god.

The converse is also not true.  If biology, then god.  By your own admission, god does not require biology to exist.

So, by using a little logic on your own statement, #1 is proven (by logic) to be untrue.

Date: 2009/10/09 11:08:13, Link
Author: OgreMkV
So if this Todd person is YEC who believes in the literal interpretation of Genesis AND believes that evolution "works and works well"...

doesn't that kind of negate the whole conversation?

Date: 2009/10/09 12:28:04, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,12:18)
Quote
I suspected somebody might try to respond in that manner.  Here is the issue:  there are Christian beliefs that are foundational even to John 3:16, even.  They're quite important and can't be blown off.

For example, you know that John 3:16 presumes theism.  There's no way an ATHEIST can do John 3:16 without first giving up atheism.  Theism is foundational to John 3:16, even if a person doesn't even know how to spell the word theism.  Theism is foundational to Christianity.  

Well, there's some OTHER biblical beliefs that are foundational to Christianity too.  Deny these other biblical beliefs--and as we've seen already in four areas, evolution DOES deny them--and you are effectively eroding, corroding, undercutting Christian belief.  

Doesn't mean necessarily that you're not a Christian, but goodness, look at that danger and damage, that potential to erode and corrode important beliefs---and look at the people who are no longer holding on to the Christian faith you're holding on to, people for whom the damage is already done.

And that's happening right now.

Ppb, what was your refutation of this explanation?  You don't seem to have supplied one.

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Your right Floys, there are some foundational beliefs that are required.

1) God must exist
2) he had a son
3) believe in god/son will give you everlasting life

That's it.  I don't see evolution anywhere in here.  I also don't see that god must have created the world in here either.

Date: 2009/10/09 12:29:23, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,12:24)
Quote
(Ogre asked)
....doesn't that kind of negate the whole conversation?

Nope.  The already-proffered suggestion of "Such-and-such-a-Christian accepts evolution even though he says specific things that clearly are NOT compatible with a belief in evolution," simply doesn't rationally establish that evolution is compatible with Christianity.

You have yet to explain why it rationally doesn't.

Remember this is all on you.  You have to convince us.

Date: 2009/10/09 12:46:58, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Your god is sadistic and cruel.  

There are more examples in the bible than I care to type up.

I guess that takes care of that... and don't give me that "master plan" garbage.

Date: 2009/10/09 12:51:50, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 09 2009,12:46)
Your god is sadistic and cruel.  

There are more examples in the bible than I care to type up.

I guess that takes care of that... and don't give me that "master plan" garbage.

Now that I think about it

Humans are made in God's image.
Humans are sadistic and cruel.

therefore...

Date: 2009/10/09 13:09:57, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,13:06)
Quote
So, Dinosaurs had sharp teeth to open coconuts.
Discuss.

Biblically, that's correct Ogre.  You may disagree with the claim itself, but you will not be able to deny that the Bible is making that specific claim.
 
Quote
Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. --  Gen. 1:30

1)  That comment isn't from me.

2) I find it painful that you would rather answer a rhetorical question from some time ago, than respond to critics of your latest comments.  

I think you volunteered for this.  It's up to you to keep up.

Date: 2009/10/09 13:36:33, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,13:22)
Quote
Ummm...having coconuts and herbs for food means death before the fall.

Nope, nope.  Coconuts and herbs do not have a "Nephesh."  Only animals and humans.   You are not killing the kiwifruit when you eat it.

It's actually worse than that.  When you eat fruit your basically performing an abortion on all the possible plants that could have come from the seeds in the fruit!

Date: 2009/10/09 14:03:24, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,13:45)
Quote
That comment isn't from me.

That's fine Ogre.  My apologies.
 
Quote
It's actually worse than that.  When you eat fruit your basically performing an abortion on all the possible plants that could have come from the seeds in the fruit!

I appreciate your attempt at humor.   :)

Out of all the things asked of you... these are the two you choose to bring up.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.  However, we have people just like this sitting on the state board of education.  Sigh...

Date: 2009/10/09 14:07:58, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 09 2009,14:05)
Quote (ppb @ Oct. 09 2009,10:40)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 09 2009,11:24)
... and I hope to be able to help you understand your errors.

Good luck with that CM.

I see Floyd much the same way I saw AFDave - a child of God lost in his own ignorance and foolishness.  But every child of God is redeemable; every soul can be brought to abandon its idols (in Dave and Floyd's case this is clearly the Bible, or rather their childish reading of the Bible).

I pray for them both.

I find it interested that this supposed Christian is more interested in being right than trying to save our souls... of course, I think he was asked not to...

But I've noticed that with a lot of creationists and similar fundamentalist groups.

Date: 2009/10/09 16:34:43, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,16:26)
Quote
The Biblical basis for this claim was not provided.

Here you go.  

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/do-leaves-die

Tell me Floyd... what is value of Pi to a reasonable number of significant digits?

Date: 2009/10/09 16:51:17, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,16:26)
Quote
The Biblical basis for this claim was not provided.

Here you go.  

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/do-leaves-die

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/161

Interesting, this article refers to Nephesh chayyah as "living soul" not "living thing".

So, our version is correct, that things souls did not die before the Fall, but things did indeed die before the fall.

You can't have it both ways, Floyd.  If you insist on using the Hebrew, then all references are "living soul", not the physical being.  If you insist on these things meaning "physical living thing", then your arguments totally fall apart.

Date: 2009/10/09 18:36:28, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,17:15)
Quote
If you insist on these things meaning "physical living thing", then your arguments totally fall apart.

The point is simply that plants don't have the "breath of life" in them like animals and humans do.  Therefore they don't die in the sense of the Hebrew word "mut".
End of 25-cent plant controversy.  You can't establish death-before-Adam by claiming veggies died.

Bottom line:  you're not committing Murder One against a celery stick.  The Bible never said you were doing so.  Put some mayo on it and eat it up.  Tastes good.  Lotsa antioxidant.  You'll love it.

Once again (that's what five or six today), you totally miss the point.

You can't have it both ways.  If Nephesh chayyah means "living soul" not "living thing", then the death of "the living soul" does not apply to things dying before the fall.  However, if you say that it does apply to things dying before the fall, then you are not taking the bible literally.

So which is it?


BTW:
Hebrew mut means "to kill" or "cause to die".  I can very easily mut a plant by pouring poison on the roots, just as I can mut a person. Mut is indeed a physical death.

Date: 2009/10/09 19:40:28, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Doc Bill @ Oct. 09 2009,18:41)
[quote]
Check and mate.

I think this only works if you're both playing chess.

You're playing chess.  He's playing go fish.

Date: 2009/10/10 13:27:50, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 08 2009,13:43)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 08 2009,12:34)
Quote
You kept rambling on about how the Pope hadn't addressed them,

....Because you and others kept rambling on about how the Pope, as a Christian who accepts evolution under certain conditions (but not others), has somehow negated and neutralized each of the Big Five Incompatibilities as pointed out by professional scientist evolutionists.  

So I've been asking -- repeatedly & specifically --  how the Pope did that, and you seem to have no specific answers other than "the Pope accepts evolution."

Floyd, as a point to debating.  It's actually up to you to prove that your big 5 are required by the pope.  

This debate is about the incompatability of evolution with Christianity not about scienctists or about personal opinions or about anything else.

How's this for starters
Christiantity
1) the Bible is the only perfect rule for faith, doctrine, and conduct
2) the necessity of the new birth in Jesus Christ
3) the Church as a fellowship of believers.
4) a conscious dependence on the Holy Spirit.

Evolution
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."


Please point out where these two definitions are incompatible.
If these are not the definitions you use for Christianity, then post your definition of Christianity.

There are three requests for you in this post Floyd, please be so good as to answer them.

I tried this several days ago.  Good luck in getting an answer.

Date: 2009/10/10 14:07:35, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I agree totally, which does bring us to the whole doctrinal crisis thing.  The more fundamentalist positions one takes, the more problematic they are, especially when they realize that none of the things they believe make sense.

Most rational Christians have no problems with science or evolution because they realize the difference between the time the bible was written and now and that the new testament basically allows worship however one pleases regardless of belief in everything else.

It's very unfortunate that the rest of us have to deal with the problems caused by many of these fundamentalists when they get into positions of power and try to force their insanity on us.

Date: 2009/10/10 14:59:02, Link
Author: OgreMkV
That's the big problem with democracy.  The majority of the people really don't have a clue about what's going on, don't do any research, and that includes the people in power.

Personally, I think we about to bring back the concept of 'the citizen'... those people that have somehow contributed to society or have met some minimum requirements (degree, job, not on welfare, etc).  But that's just me...

Sorry for the thread jack.

Since we've beaten down the evolution is incompatible with Christianity argument, can we go to the teach ID thing... I've got some really good questions for FLoyd.

Date: 2009/10/11 22:59:39, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 11 2009,22:54)
Quote
Quote those evolutionist scientists who offer "opposite opinions" that refute the Big Five Incompatibilities.  Substantive, considered opinions, reconciliations of the Big Five, from fellow evolutionists.  Please quote 'em.  I've been waiting for somebody to do that, all thread long.

Hmmm.  This sincere (and important) request was not answered.  Must be a very difficult gig for the homies to accomplish, aye.....

:)

This is just like the "Why not teach the controversy" plees.  To anyone who knows what they're talking about, there are no Big 5 incompatibilities, so why try to refute something that doesn't exist.

You're right Floyd, the pope has never considered your Big 5.  As I said earlier. you are the only person I have ever heard even mention these.  Hundreds of theologians who are way smarter than you don't see a problem, so why should they bother answering them?

Ohh, yeah.  I forgot, you're right and every rational christian is wrong.

Date: 2009/10/11 23:17:23, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 11 2009,23:15)
Quote
I gave you the NAS statement which is respresentative of the consensus of an entire group of scientists

Oh yes, I remember your NAS quotation.  Not only did it NOT specifically address (let alone offer any reconcilation) of the Big Five Incompatibilities as I requested, it actually brought up and reinforced the infamous NOMA surrender-demand that was popularized by SJ Gould in Rocks Of Ages.

Next time you do a debate on incompatibility, Deadman, you may just wanna leave off the NAS quotation.  That little evo-sales-pitch is a STANDOUT example of incompatibility, all by itself.

FloydLee

Geez, it wasn't supposed to.  Do you even remember what you wrote 20 minutes or so ago?

Date: 2009/10/12 08:03:14, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Thinking about Floyd and Erasmus' water question.  It seems to me that there are likely 3 possibilities:

1) Floyd can't read
2) Floyd can't answer
3) Floyd won't answer

1 is pretty obviously incorrect, but it must be tested just to be sure.  Floyd can read, though comprehension appears to be low.

2 is definitely a possible.  However, there are many questions that Floyd has answered since the first iteration of the question.  So floyd can/could answer if he chooses to.  Which leaves...

3, based on some observations, is most likely.  So with that in mind, let's look at the reasons why.

a) Floyd doesn't understand the question
b) Floyd doesn't have an answer
c) Floyd knows that the answer to the question would invalidate most everything that he's said to this point

a, while this seems related to 'Floyd can't read' it is actually more about the parsing out of the question rather than the simple ability to read the words.  However, Floyd has rather continuously shown that he answers questions without understanding the question being asked, so a) is not really valid.

b, this is probably most likely.  It's pretty obvious that he only answers questions when he develops an (or reads someone else's) answer.

c, is actually my favorite of the choices.  It would mean that Floyd knows that he's incorrect and just blindly stumbling about to find some hope that his faith can survive the crisis his mind is creating.  Alas, I have little hope that this is the correct answer.  

Based on everything I have observed so far, 3b is most likely the correct hypothesis.  The test for this hypothesis will be continued monitoring of this thread.  I predict that either 1) Floyd will continue to ignore the question indefinitely or 2) Floyd will stumble upon an answer that he thinks will answer the question and slam it out at some point in the future.

The null hypothesis is, of course, the light dawns on Floyd and he understands that he is hopelessly confused.  There are probably at least one or two here who would be happy to take FLoyd on an expidition of learning.

Anyway... on with the experiment.

Date: 2009/10/12 19:16:17, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,19:07)
Quote
I'm ignoring the Oldroyd thing since it's unsourced....

Ohhhh no no, a very specific and direct source citation was given for Oldroyd's statement by AIG.  Here it is, right down to the page number, in case you missed it.
 
Quote
David Oldroyd, The (Australian) Weekend Review, 20–21 March 1993, p. 5.

If a person doesn't have time to visit their local library and track down the Weekend Review article, then that's understandable, but please don't make the mistake of saying or suggesting it's unsourced.  That would be a falsehood.

LOL

"Kettle, thou art black," sayeth the pot.

Date: 2009/10/13 08:47:16, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Just as a quick aside... if you somehow "open the door" to teach creationism in public schools, then you also "open to the door" to teach every other creation myth that exists.  In fact, by the laws of the United States of America (cannot promote one religion over another), then I would be required to teach ALL creation myths.  With, given about 15 minutes for each, would require about 3 school years to do.  (Yes, that's just an estimate.)  

I have no problem with that, but I bet you do.

On the other hand, you keep saying these things.  I don't think they mean, what you think they mean.  

So you admit that the theory of evolution says nothing about God.  Good, I'm glad we agree on that.

science = natural
super natural /= natural
therefore:
 science /= supernatural

What about this aren't you getting?

Please describe in some detail a test whereby we could determine whether God has had a hand in anything in the natural world.

Date: 2009/10/13 11:53:42, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Floyd, a quick lesson in basic ecology.  

All the energy for life on Earth comes from the sun (we'll ignore the chemoautotrophs for now because they are rarely involved in the large ecosystems that most people are familiar with).
Plants use chlorophyll to convert that solar radiation to chemically available energy in the form of ATP, which is then used to build sugars.
Herbivores (obligate plant eaters) then consume the plants to get energy and raw materials to increase size, have babies, etc.
Carnivores (obligate meat eaters) then consume the herbivores to get the energy and raw materials they need to increase size, have babies, etc.
Omnivores (everything eaters) have the options to consume whatever food sources is available.
Decomposers consume dead things in order to recycle the material back into the ecosystem so that plants have a source of raw materials (not energy).

So, by your logic...
 1) There were no carnivores before the fall.  Many of these species are obligate meat-eaters.  That means that they must eat large amounts of animal protein in order to live.  Substitutes will not allow them to live.

 2) There were no decomposers, since they only consume dead things.

Your hypothesis REQUIRES, that we do not find any meat-eaters in the fossil record before 6000 years ago. (They wouldn't have anything to eat.)
Your hypothesis REQUIRES, that we do not find fossils (because nothing died) before 6000 years ago.
Your hypothesis REQUIRES, that even if something died, we should find it completly intact (all organs, soft tissue, etc) because there were no decomposers. (Decomposers would have had nothing to eat.)

Therefore: either fossils do not exist (especially the meat-eating fossils) or there is something wrong with your hypothesis.

It's demonstratable that fossil meat eating animals do exist.  
It's demonstratable that these fossilized animals did not exist during historical times (I think a smilodon would be a pretty obvious animal to mention in the historical records).

I could go on, but what's the point?

Date: 2009/10/13 11:56:30, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,11:27)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 13 2009,11:17)
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,11:08)
Wow, so there's a different definition between "life" in animals and "life" in plants?  Where does fungi, bacterium, etc, fit in?

Having no nostrils within which the breath of life may be found, they are not living, of course.

You must keep up with your ancient Hebrew.

Fish do not breath from their nostrils.  Sponges and jellyfish, animals last time I checked, have no nostrils.  Also, please correct me if I'm wrong) but I seem to remember that there are a few animals that breath through their skin as well.  Are they in the same category as plants?

Some salamanders retain external gills throughout their life.

Is the nostril thing supposed to mean 'consumes oxygen for respiration'?  Cause plants do that too.

Date: 2009/10/13 13:13:36, Link
Author: OgreMkV
After teaching science for five years in Texas... it's not really the kids fault, it's the dumb*ss school board members and State Board of Education.

Two years ago, I had a 'talking to' from my principle about teaching evolution (in Biology Class!).  I had to explain to her that evolution is one of the science standards that we are required by law to teach.

It is really depressing.

Date: 2009/10/13 19:26:52, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 13 2009,18:52)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 13 2009,15:57)
Six kingdoms? I've heard of plants, animals, and fungi being referred to as kingdoms. What other three taxa are called kingdoms? (In what I've read, Prokaryotes, Eukaryotes, and Archaea are sometimes called domains.)

Well, depends on the source, but for those that do go for the six kingdom thing, they are:

I. Plants
II. Animals
III. Fungi
IV. Protists
V. Bacteria
VI. Archaea

with the first four corresponding to Woese's Eukarya domain.

(edited for obsolete terminology)

V. should be Eubacteria... but I digress

Date: 2009/10/13 19:31:17, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 13 2009,17:50)
<waves hi from the Piney Woods>

The same thing happened to me.  The principal was more trying to avoid flak from the parents than actually disagreeing with me, but that's exactly the type of cowardice that makes our jobs harder.  That made it much easier for me to change schools the next year.

Where 'bouts?  I taught in Port Arthur and Sabine Pass.  Hurricanes ran me off.

It's one of the main reasons I quit teaching.  I can teach great, I just can't deal with idiots.  And I sure as heck can't stand a kid who looks at me and says, "I don't care what the evidence is, I won't learn it."  Then I get in trouble for failing him.

Date: 2009/10/13 21:50:25, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Part of the problem is that he's admitted that such people are indeed Christians... which he refuses to realize negates his entire argument.

Date: 2009/10/13 22:23:07, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 13 2009,22:17)
Quote
My favorite reaction is when they realize I'm not just saying we're related to apes, but to fish and bacteria even further back.

Yeah, there's critters out there a lot more undesirable as distant relatives than monkeys and apes (e.g., any parasite you care to name). Besides, primates at least have pretty much the same parts as us, just in different proportions.

Henry

I once showed my kids a video about a group of chimpanzees that got it in their heads to beat the crap out of one of their own group.  Ended up beating the chimp to death.  Then left the body laying hanging from a low branch.

Quite a few kids in that particular school had a learning experience that day.  Even a few of the gang bangers had a real think on that one.

Date: 2009/10/13 23:13:48, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,23:09)
       
Quote
(Ogre)
Part of the problem is that he's admitted that such people are indeed Christians... (snipping the rest for now)

CM (the one who wants to save my soul or something) wasn't evn aware that I'd already answered that question.  Ogre, by contrast, was on the ball and provided the correction.  Hmm.

Of all the things in this thread... that's the thing that makes you go 'hmmm'!?!?!?!?

Also, an interesting choice of snip there Floyd.  Just enough to make you go hmmm... but not enough to actually be something to discuss.

Are we getting to the ID is science part soon or are we going to beat a dead horse for another few days?

Date: 2009/10/13 23:54:26, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,23:43)
Quote
Are we getting to the ID is science part soon or are we going to beat a dead horse for another few days?

I'd say in a few days.  I think it's clear now that a definite and documentable Incompatibility exists between evolution and Christianity, but there's a few posts I still want to address anyway.  

(For example, like that one poster who tried to bring up Ken Miller without realizing that (1) Ken Miller called us humans "lucky accidents" in FDG--an automatic reaffirmation of Incompatibility, and (2)  Rosenhouse's argument (the 5th Incompatibility) was specifically targeted at Ken Miller anyway.)

SLP obviously wants to do a mini-debate on Oro, but since anything I post on that or other threads gets re-routed here anyway, (and since the bulk of the posting that was needed here on this topic is done), I might take one day or so just to engage SLP.

Can you provide any evidence that is not a quote?  Cause, I think the others here have shown just as many quotes as you have that counter your argument.

I mean, if all you want is a quote count, we could probably do that, but what's the point?  

Of course, you have to use actual quotes, not made up or 'edited' ones and understand what the person quoted was talking about.

Date: 2009/10/14 08:02:20, Link
Author: OgreMkV
As much as I would rather discuss science, everyone knows that ID is not science.  Even Dembski and Behe have said so.  That's a moot point.

Date: 2009/10/14 08:58:33, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 13 2009,16:26)
I am a Christian; I see no incompatibility between evolutionary theory and Christian doctrine.

Here's one:

Date: 2009/10/14 09:14:49, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (nmgirl @ Oct. 14 2009,08:58)
My response is real simple:  i am a Christian who believes in evolution.  someone else's opinion is irrelevant to my belief.

Here's another... since I'm discounting quotes taken out of context... we're two up on you.

Date: 2009/10/14 09:59:13, Link
Author: OgreMkV
**Warning, this is kind of a rambling post, I was thinking as I was writing.  I hope there's a nugget or two of value in here.**

Yep, it's done, you lost.  

Look, since you get to use the personal opinion of scientists, then so do we.  C. Mews personal opinion is that there is no controversy.

You still haven't explained why he, as a Christian, can think there is no controversy and yet you claim, any Christian must realize that there must be a controversy.


Anyway, I think the important point here is that quotes are basically useless for debate.  If I looked hard enough, I could find a quote in the Bible that says "FL is the antichrist".

On the other hand, the people who think that there is no controversy keep trying to get you, Floyd, to define certain things, then explaining to you how your own defintions do not match what you claim, and how your interpretation of scripture is just that, your interpretation.  One that is not shared, so far as I can find, by anyone else.

To give you an example: I can argue about how bees can't possibly fly through the laws of aerodynamics, yet I make this argument on my fornt porch watching bees fly from flower to flower.  My interpretation of aerodynamics is obviously flawed in this case because of the massive amounts of evidence against it.  I could quote hundreds of engineers who said that bees can't possibly fly, yet there they go, making idiots of us all.

It's the same way with creationists.  You can quote all you want, you can bemoan how you're treated all you want, you can claim conspiracy all you want, and you can ignore reality all you want.  Until the bees fall to the ground, it's all just words.

I think part of the fundamental problem with this 'debate' is the whole point that scientists are trying to get you to understand.  Religion (any religion) and science are not two sides of the same coin, they are not in any way related, and they do not describe the same thing in mutually contradictory ways.  They are different.

Science can't explain religion.  Science doesn't want to explain religion (I refer to hard sciences here, no one understands what psycologists do).  Science doesn't care.

Religion shouldn't try to explain science.  Real religions don't care why gasoline burns, as long as it gets the congregation to Luby's before noon.  Religion just looks silly when it tries to explain science.

People on the other hand, do have opinions about both science and religion, sometimes both at the same time.  Since there are so many religions and not a few interpretations of some sciences, there are disagreements.  However, as has been pointed out, opinions about religion or science are just that, opinions.  

Basically, this entire arguement is wanking.

Date: 2009/10/14 10:49:14, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,10:30)
Continued in next post or posts.

FloydLee

I think we're still waiting on a point-by-point refutation promised several days ago...

Anyway, I just singed up for free acces to biomedcentral.com and type 'evolution' into the title search bar.

Something interesting appeared.  Within the first five results there are
2- Research Articles
1- Research
1- Review
and
1- Opinion (!!!!)

Interesting that scientists have opinions about sciency things.

Date: 2009/10/14 11:19:10, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,10:49)
Quote
Look, since you get to use the personal opinion of scientists, then so do we.  C. Mews personal opinion is that there is no controversy.

Interesting.  C. Mews' personal opinion.  I think after doing SLP, I will do an extended focus on "C. Mews' personal opinions" WRT the Big Five, and that will end the Incompatibility debate no matter who posts any more posts or declares victory (that includes you too).  

******

 
Quote
If I looked hard enough, I could find a quote in the Bible that says "FL is the antichrist".

May I ask for documentation on that claim too?

It was easier than I thought

2 John 1:7 (NIV)
Many deceivers... fl, ...is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Date: 2009/10/14 12:44:11, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,12:38)
Quote
It was easier than I thought

2 John 1:7 (NIV)
Many deceivers... fl, ...is the deceiver and the antichrist.

I seeeee.   2 John 1:7 specifically lists FL as the antichrist.   Thanks for the clarification.

FloydLee

Yep, if you can edit quotes, add elipises, and capitalize words that aren't done so in the original, then why can't I?

Date: 2009/10/14 13:22:07, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 14 2009,12:53)
While showing FL how annoying misquoting can be, it distracts from FL actually having to answer direst questions and actually sticking his neck out when dealing with issues he'd rather just see go away.

So FL, how about the other posts where you've been shown your dogma doesn't square with facts (oh yes, saying you've addressed it doesn't mean you've been able to refute it if you have, I'm sure you'll be more than willing to repost it and put those people in their place, right?).

What about my question that if you found that Genesis is not literal, you'd have no faith?  Is that a correct assessment?

You're right of course.  It was mainly an attempt at humor.  Since he can't see the difference when the actual quote is presented, then he won't understand any other part of it.

I've got a list building for the ID teaching in school part, floyd, just let me know when it's time.  But please, answer all the current issues first.

Date: 2009/10/14 15:19:42, Link
Author: OgreMkV
While you're waiting, you could always finish one or two of the project you said that you would get to later and didn't or come up with something new that hasn't been refuted already.

For example, what does abiogenesis have to with whether evolution and chrisitanity are incompitable, or whatever it was you said?

Date: 2009/10/14 16:47:31, Link
Author: OgreMkV
that's 3 responses to all five BFFs and Floyd has yet to respond to any of them.

Two of them, he has said, "I'll post those in a bit."  Still waiting.

Someone wake me up when we get to teaching ID in science class.

Date: 2009/10/14 17:15:21, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,16:55)
Quote
Someone wake me up when we get to teaching ID in science class.

You were not even able to supply documentation for the specific claim you yourself provided.  Have a nice nap dude, you earned it.

The fact that you choose not to recognize a valid and true response, is not my problem.  I can't help it if you don't understand logic, evidence, or science.

You would have failed my science class miserably... because you refuse to learn.

Date: 2009/10/14 17:35:32, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Tell me one thing Floyd.  What is one difference we would expect to see if God was and if he was not guiding evolution?

Date: 2009/10/14 17:42:54, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 14 2009,17:36)
Quote
I can't help it if you don't understand logic, evidence, or science.

However, I DO understand that you said this:
 
Quote
Cause, I think the others here have shown just as many quotes as you have that counter your argument.

After which you were sincerely asked,  
   
Quote
Really?   Please document that claim.

And I understand that the rrequested documentation wasn't provided.   All done, yes?     :)

Nope, I provided you two quotes and a someone else provided a list of 13,000 (was it?) that refute your entire arguement.

Again, it's not my fault if you can't understand it.

Date: 2009/10/15 09:41:51, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 15 2009,09:33)
All done!

Let's see:

You have failed to convince anyone here that your BFFs cause conflict between evolution and christianity.

You have failed to convince anyone here that your BFFs are even valid!

You have failed to reply to three persons critiques of your BFFs.

You have failed to provide reponses when you indicated you would provide responses (as in "I'll post about this in a minute").

You have failed simple tests of logic.

You have failed journalistic integrity.

Your interpretation of the bible: failed.

Your version of christianity: failed.

yeah, I guess you're right... all done.

Date: 2009/10/15 15:10:53, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I read through the thread you guys are talking about and the saddest thing jumped out at me:

"tragic mishap
10/14/2009
5:34 pm
Of course, I’m willing to accept an old age and common descent and all that for purposes of conversation, but when it comes down to what I actually believe, I’m betting on Genesis."

The Bible thumpers have people so scared of going to hell that they disbelieve what they know is correct in the hopes that they will go to heaven.

At least that's what I get out of this guys post.

Date: 2009/10/15 16:24:04, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Maybe Robin's sister can answer this one then.  How many words were there in ancient Hebrew?

I know the English vocabulary has gone up almost an order of magnitude since Shakespeare.

It stands to reason that when you combine translation errors, change in words, re-translation errors, and forced changes due to doctrinal adjustments... I can barely see how the bible is readable, much less historically accurate.

Date: 2009/10/15 18:20:03, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Floyd, if you had bothered to read to Robin's post, you would have found two links that would have explained the origin of the various mythologies.

Finally, you realize that the Newton directly disagrees with the Bible too... or more correctly the bible directly disagrees with Newton and Einstein about what makes the planets orbit.

Joshua 10:12-14
12 On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: "O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."
13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

Since this cannot happen in Newtowian or Eisteinian space, this goes DIRECTLY opposite them.  So why the tirade against just evolution?

Date: 2009/10/15 21:59:21, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I guess I can use a bit of scripture too.

(NIV) 17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. [b] , [c]

Now, Mount Hermon is the highest point in Isreal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Hermon) at 9230 feet.  [Since no other culture mentions a great flood around this time, I guess it's fair to exclude their mountains.  God probably put a shield around Isreal and Judea at that time... but he must include Turkey.]  Ignore all of the above, Greater Ararat in Turkey has a height of 16,800 feet  or 5178 meters. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Ararat)

So the water had to be that deep.  Since that's roughly  half of Bill's calculation, then you still have to contend with 500 feet (152 meters) of water per day.

The area of Turkey, Syria, and Isreal combined is rough 390,000 km^2 (ignoring the minor countries around them).

390,000 km^2 * 150m/day = 58,800 cubic kilometers of water per day for 40 days.  That means that the entire Gulf of Mexico was dropped on 3 countries if 40 days.  

Hurricane Katrina dropped almost 15 inches of water on LA.  Thats .380 meters.

So where did that water come from again?

Keep in mind that fresh water has a mass of 1g/cm^3.  That's the same as 1,000,000,000 kilograms per cubic kilometer.  So that comes to 58,800,000,000,000 kilograms of water per day for 40 days.  Moving at 1 meter per second... that equals 29,400,000,000,000 Joules of energy.

A kilowatt hour is 3,600,000 Joules, so that's 8.16 million kilowatt hours... more than 8 times the energy use of the state of California in one year (2008).

That's a lot of energy.

Date: 2009/10/15 22:28:29, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 15 2009,22:17)
yw Ogre

please don't start with math

Sorry.  I like math.

Date: 2009/10/15 23:35:55, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 15 2009,23:07)
Did you calculate all the water in the oceans and where that came from--water vapor wasn't it--I believe the Archaen era--not looking--may be wrong.  Water vapor, methane, nitrogen, CO2 all from volcanoes--and the earth cooled how again?  Where did all the greenhouse gases go--the CO2 and water vapor?  How did the earth cool so that the water vapor could form an ocean.  That's alot of water vapor--it expands 1600 times the volume of liquid water.  

So you have the same problem accounting for water--only you have no God in your equations--no creator who might be catalyst for some phenomena.  

Again as I said no one knows the height of any mountains 4000 years ago. Your math is without variables when it is based on today's data.

It might be more pertinent to know something of thermal runaway in silicate and other minerals.

True, but science has 4.5 billion years to dissipate the heat.  That's well within the rules for thermodynamics.

The Bible has to deal with that and do it in 40 days and not fry the 8 humans left.

CO2: hmmm... ever heard of carbon sinks?  Life (especially photosynthetic bacteria) take in CO2 and use sunlight to convert it to energy and structure.  Basic Biology.  

Mountain height: are you honestly telling me that mountain ranges (even in just say Turkey) grew so much in just 4000 odd years?  Even halving the height 4000 years ago creates some insurmountable problems for you.  That means that Mount Ararat had to increase in height an average of 2 feet per year for 4000 years.

Basically, you depend on God to do these amazing miracles and then turn them all off, just in time for science to really start to be able to explain them.

You use a lot of fancy words, but I don't think they mean that you think they mean.

Thermal runaway in silicates was a hypothesis to explain the magnetic field on Ganymede.  However, "We find that, contrary to expectations, there are no physically plausible scenarios in which tidal heating in the silicates is sufficient to cause the thermal runaway necessary to prevent core cooling." (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008Icar..198..384B)
Some (very quick) research also indicates that Ganymede has significantly more silicon in its composition than Earth does.  Plus, the Earth doesn't have sufficient tidal interaction to generate the heat needed to begin a silicate thermal runaway.  I mean, the articles in question are discussing changes in the orbit of Ganymede, not just friction rubbing.

Date: 2009/10/15 23:55:55, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 15 2009,23:40)
Ogre: he's appealing to John Baumgardner's crap at ICR: http://www.icr.org/research/jb/runawaysubduction.htm/
See also the Talk Origins response here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH430.html

Ah, I see.  Garbage in the simulation, garbage out of the simulation.  Got it.  Thanks for the links.

Date: 2009/10/16 10:36:37, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I think we have another problem with semmantics.  Now we have to define 'direct' and 'indirect' for floyd.

By his definition, there are no indirect actions or results.

Date: 2009/10/16 15:19:55, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Maybe the Quote from John was right...

See here is the problem Floyd.  By your defintion of direct (presumed because you haven't defined it), then everything that happens is the result of direct intervention by God.  Which does mean that your god is a cruel, sadistic SOB.

Date: 2009/10/17 09:06:08, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Floyd.  In all seriousness, do you really think it's OK to lie to others as long as you are preaching the word?

I mean, any translation of the bible includes words to the effect of "thou shall not bear false witness".  Yet, you lied to Deadman about what you would and would not do in the thread.

Do you really not understand why we slam you?  Do you really not understand that you translate some parts of the bible literally and some parts metaphorically and you claim to translate the whole thing literally?

These questions are intended to be a dig against you or your case.  I really want to know your honest answers to these questions.

Let me know when you get to teaching ID.  Still got my list ready.

Date: 2009/10/17 09:16:00, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 17 2009,08:17)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 17 2009,05:53)
David Coopedge is a Tard:
   
Quote
A yellow banana is evidence that all ravens are black. Why? Because “all ravens are black” is logically equivalent to “all non-black things are non-ravens.”

*Slaps forehead.*

You just flunked basic philosophy of science, Coppedge.

ETA: WTF is it with creationists and bananas anyway?

There's a really good line there, but this is a family forum

Date: 2009/10/17 10:58:42, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Floyd, the point is you said you would do certain things in this thread.  You haven't done those things.

Now answer the questions.

Date: 2009/10/17 11:32:03, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 17 2009,11:00)
No, the point is that some of you are hypocrites who traffic in double standards.  Are you one of them?

Pot = Kettle

You still (after what 6 days?) haven't answered Erasmus questions...

Let's see:

1) Erasmus questions about the water and why God is required for water and why he's not required for water to flow downhill
2) You haven't answer CM question about whether CM is a Christian or not
3) You haven't answered any of the three responses you've gotten for your big five fallacies
4) You haven't answered my question about "Do you really not understand that you translate some parts of the bible literally and some parts metaphorically and you claim to translate the whole thing literally?"

Anyone else remember some questions that FLoyd hasn't answered?  

So that's where we are right now.  Waiting for you to fulfill your part of the deal and answer the questions.

Aside: I am personally offended that you would call me a hypocrite.  I have made no claims of faith and made no statements that haven't been backed up with evidence.

Date: 2009/10/17 14:01:02, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 17 2009,12:14)
What are you talking about?  Of course the Bible contains metaphorical language.  Because a narrative contains a metaphor does not make the entire narrative a metaphor.

Now, here's the critical question:

How do you tell the difference?

Date: 2009/10/17 15:59:05, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (JLT @ Oct. 17 2009,15:50)
*** We all know that the earth is hollow on the inside, don't we.

Oh, yeah!  I saw this movie last night that had a geologist in it, so it must right.  Anyway, the world was hollow and there was this big ocean.  And a lot of the water went up through the volcano.  Oh and there were dinosaurs and people walking side-by-side.

It must be true, I heard that the book the movie was based on is almost 150 years old.  That's the same age as Darwin's book.

Date: 2009/10/17 17:15:46, Link
Author: OgreMkV
To be honest... I thought the painting was a photoshop of Bruce Campbell's movie poster for Army of Darkness...

Date: 2009/10/17 19:14:54, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I would like to point out that I am incredibly offended that you hotlinked to a site that requires cookies to be implanted on my PC.  Try doing things respectfully.

Furthermore, if you believe that any of that is a problem for science, then you really are incredibly confused.

Date: 2009/10/17 21:03:33, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 17 2009,16:16)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 17 2009,12:01)
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 17 2009,12:14)
What are you talking about?  Of course the Bible contains metaphorical language.  Because a narrative contains a metaphor does not make the entire narrative a metaphor.

Now, here's the critical question:

How do you tell the difference?

In case you missed it...  

I really, really want this one answered.

Date: 2009/10/18 00:02:45, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 17 2009,23:52)
Where are his errors--the age of the earth? Or the age of the coastal crust?  I must have missed it.  Obviously--he's a PhD and he must have missed it too.

pH.D.s do not grant one infallibility... of course neither does being a Christian.

that's why there's this process called peer-review...


BTW: How do  know when you can read the Bible metaphorically and when you must read it literally?

Date: 2009/10/18 01:00:00, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I just read the thread at UD that you guys have been discussing.  

If you had told me that there were that many people that were that stupid about science, yet trying to claim they were scientists... I'd have called you a liar to your face.

Jesus, America is fucked.  Is there any country that has a decent science program, educational program, and let's me keep my guns?

Date: 2009/10/18 08:20:21, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Oct. 18 2009,05:01)
Switzerland? Plenty of guns there, a decent standard of education and CERN.

hmmm... access to decent cars, winding mountain roads, meets listed requirements... but dagnabit, I'm from Texas, that place is cold.

Date: 2009/10/18 13:07:50, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I'd really like to get on that board and talk to some of these people... but like the great philosopher once said, "Ya can't fix stupid."

Date: 2009/10/18 18:22:47, Link
Author: OgreMkV
So if your chemist friend does not find a soft diamond, then you get nothing in the mail.  As long as you get nothing in the mail, you assume all diamonds are hard.

Now, I'm a not a logician, but it sounds like (in both these cases) that you're trying to find evidence of the positive case, when the only way to verify the positive case is to test every possible case.

I may be off the mark here, but that's why we don't prove positives in science, we can't test every conceivable situation.  However, if we test many of them, then we can begin to say confidently case is positive.

On the other hand, a negative case may totally negate the entire situation OR the negative case might be a unique case that is explainable by a slight modification (e.g. the albino raven, it has the gene for being black, but the gene is turned off).

So, is the 'paradox' a valid view of the world or metaphysical wanking?

Date: 2009/10/18 20:51:49, Link
Author: OgreMkV
We better not have broken him.  We haven't even gotten to the teach ID in science yet.

Date: 2009/10/18 20:55:34, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I didn't get pictures, but we found a bunny (Eastern Cottontail) nest in our backyard yesterday.  I almost found it by hitting three baby bunnies with a lawnmower, but I noticed them moving and my lawnmower has a kill/instant brake switch.

I was glad to see them, all of our new neighbors have dogs (large ones) and I was afraid that the population was in danger.

For now, the backyard has become a no mow zone and to hell with the HOA.

Date: 2009/10/18 22:38:08, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Let's see if this works.  hmmm... not very well.  I don't have flicker and google docs doesn't put the file access in a form that this forum likes.  Here's a link.

I believe this is the mama rabbit checking out my boy's slide.

bunny picture

Date: 2009/10/19 08:14:53, Link
Author: OgreMkV
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091016121827.htm  Seeing Blue: Fish Vision Discovery Makes Waves In Evolutionary Biology

Interesting article about a single deletion event that removed the ability of the fish to see UV light.

The only problem with this article is that it's ripe for being misinterpretted.  

"The researchers found that adaptive changes occur by a small number of amino acid substitutions, but most substitutions do not lead to functional changes."

and

"Evolutionary biology is filled with arguments that are misleading, at best," Yokoyama says. "To make a strong case for the mechanisms of natural selection, you have to connect changes in specific molecules with changes in phenotypes, and then you have to connect these changes to the living environment."

I predict great amounts of quote mining from this article.

Date: 2009/10/19 09:36:50, Link
Author: OgreMkV
What about all the other questions that you haven't answered (not to mention all the posts you siad you were going to get to, but never did) floyd?

Date: 2009/10/19 11:02:47, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Questions Floyd has not answered:

Floyd, do you understand that the opinions of scientists and theologists about evolutionary are entirely different from the tenets of evolutionary theory?


Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 17 2009,11:32)

1) Erasmus questions about the water and why God is required for water and why he's not required for water to flow downhill
2) You haven't answer CM question about whether CM is a Christian or not
3) You haven't answered any of the three responses you've gotten for your big five fallacies
4) You haven't answered my question about "Do you really not understand that you translate some parts of the bible literally and some parts metaphorically and you claim to translate the whole thing literally?"


and...

Floyd, do you understand that the opinions of scientists and theologists about evolutionary are entirely different from the tenets of evolutionary theory?

In direct response to "actually SUBSCRIBE to a particular faith before trying too hard to preach to a member of that faith about what that faith permits or prohibits", I'd just like to point out that
1) Some of the people here do subcribe to Chrisitianity
2) I don't think anyone subscribes to the faith you seem to be
3) We're not basing our comments on your faith on anything EXCEPT what you have specifically said.

Date: 2009/10/19 14:01:18, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,13:46)
Somebody please let CM know that his gig on the Nicene Creed has been answered.

In what way 'answered'?  As I recall the question was, "Do you, Floyd, agree with the creed?"

I have seen you attack CM, bu that's all in the last day.

Oh, there's a whole list of questions to answer instead of playing word games with whether it's answered or not.  Just restate your answer.  It's not that hard... unless there wasn't really an answer.

Date: 2009/10/19 15:18:43, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,15:07)

I bet if you answer the question... and the other questions... and make the posts you said you would make... and discuss the refutations of the five fallacies... and, just perhaps, admit that you have made an error or two...

then they will quit treating you like a troll and we can get back serious debate instead of whatever it is we've got.

There are several people on this thread that have stated that you did not answer the question.  Instead of screaming about whether you did or not, why not just answer the question?  It's easier, it's more respectful, and it contributes to the discussion rather than distracting from it.

Date: 2009/10/19 17:12:06, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,15:50)
Quote
then they will quit treating you like a troll and we can get back serious debate instead of whatever it is we've got.

.....this coming from the guy who was sincerely asked to document his particular claim involving quotations in this thread and he did not do it.  

(This is the same guy who early on, decided to blame me for **his** going to hell--and apparently some other frictions earlier in life--which once again Deadman did not call him on his theological commentary there.)

Don't worry though Ogre, I've worked hard at trying to keep up with answering multiple posters and I intend to finish my topics with much seriousness.   I'm going to offer "serious debate" these last two weeks, no matter how many clowns decide to keep practicing for circus.

First, good job with the distractions... why not answer the questions instead of trying to pass blame.

Now, let's see I said that because you are a liar, you are arrogant, you are intolerant, ignorant, and a poor Christian who would rather fight a losing battle on the "inerrant" bible than minister as Christians laws suggest, that I would rather spend eternity in hell than spend any amount of time in heaven with you and people like you.

That's what is called an OPINION, based on the listed facts.  If you can't handle the opinions, that you have nothing to counter and everything to corroborate, then that's not my problem.

Again, I want to discuss science and as a professional educator, I can't wait to talk about the teaching of ID in a classroom.  Instead, you choose to argue about whether or not you answered a question for all of today.

If you want to play word games, well, I can do that too.  It's not as much fun, it's much more subjective (unlike science which has facts), and it all comes down to who gets bored first.  Frankly, I'm already bored with it.

Again, it was a nice dodge though.  Let me ask this... why won't you just answer the question?  

BTW: By my record keeping, you are about 6 days behind on making the posts you said you would and yet you want to argue about piddling things.

Date: 2009/10/19 17:23:56, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 19 2009,17:18)
Ohhh please.  Why play with words?  You could refute me in one shot by simply saying what your hoenst core religious beliefs are.  If they match with biblical Christianity, (John 3:16, Romans 10:9-10, 1 Cor. 15:3-4), then voila!  You're a Christian and I would have to retract my statements.

Shoot, you could give the same kind of simple quickie statement that Nmgirl gave, and that would be sufficient to cause me to retract.  Shoot me down that fast.

But let us not lie, either one of us.  You know you ain't there.  Playing with words don't cut it.  If you could have, you would have done just like CM and royally announced that you are "the living refutation" of the thread topic simply because you were a professing Christian who also believes in evolution.  

You've had 54 pages to do just like Nmgirl, just like CM, just like the Pope.  And you ain't done it.  Because you CANNOT do it.  

At this point, I would testify in a court of law (even if I somehow got refuted and embarrassed later) that you ain't no Christian.  

Wanna disprove me?  Come outta your hidey-hole and say your core beliefs out loud, right here and now.  Let the redeemed of the Lord say so, if he's really down wit' the crew.  I say you ain't, and that you're scared to admit you ain't.  Shoot me down, disprove me, right now.

Witnessing to the heathens = FAIL!

Date: 2009/10/19 18:31:36, Link
Author: OgreMkV
actually Floyd, you were the one who said, "I would swear in court" regarding deadman's religion.

Date: 2009/10/19 19:31:56, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Reed @ Oct. 19 2009,17:48)
Ho hum 32 more exoplanets. This proves we are the special creation of god unspecified telic entity, right ?

I'm actually really curious as to what happens when we find life on other planets.

I especially want to see us meet an intelligent life form on another planet, ask it read the Bible, then laugh it's ass off and everything humans have done to each other in the name of some unknowable entity that is omni-everything.  (This, BTW, doesn't have to be directed at the Bible, all holy texts I can think of right off the top of my head are included here).

Date: 2009/10/20 08:48:43, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,08:33)
Quote
What is there to be fearful of? DM must be shaking in his shoes, right? I'm an agnostic, Floyd (it sure is scary to say that - I'm going to be quaking all day).

Interesting.  See how easy it is just to say out loud where you're really coming from, Keelyn?  You did it in one microsecond.  Easy as pie.  

So you tell me. What is there to be fearful of?
More specifically, what is there for Deadman to be fearful of?

Floyd, let it go.  No one cares.  It has nothing to do with the 'discussion' at hand (i.e. the 'incompatability' between science and religion).

Are you going to answer the questions (all of them)?
 -- if not, then
Are we going to move to the next topic?
 -- if not, then
Why?

Date: 2009/10/20 09:21:57, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,09:13)
Quote
Floyd, let it go.  No one cares.

Merely responding to Keelyn, Mr. D.  That's all.
Hey, would you be an agnostic like she is?  Or an atheist?  Gotta be something (other than Christian.)

Here's another one:

Floyd can't read.  (See, I was the one who posted 'no one cares', Floyd.  Not Deadman.)

Now, instead of responding only to stuff that has bearing on the discussion at hand ('why science is compatible with religion')... why not answer some of the questions posted to you... OR make some of the posts that you said you would make several days ago?

How about it, back to the topic?  or have you given up?

Date: 2009/10/20 11:04:48, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,10:58)
Quote
However, the human soul, on which man's humanity definitively depends, cannot emerge from matter, since the soul is of a spiritual nature.

This sentence makes God a required explanation, absolutely for the origin of the first humans.  
Moreover, the theory of evolution, in which "God as creator or designer is no longer required" (Mayr), is NOT sufficient to produce humans after all.  

Which adds up to create an incompatibility between evolution (which gives God his pink slip, Dawkins said), and Christianity, of course 

This is true even for Catholic Christianity, as it turns out.  As you can see, they **always** re-affirm the First Incompatibility WRT human origins on Earth.

It make god a required explanation FOR THE SOUL of which science has not (and probably never will) have any opinion, investigation, or conclusion... because it's beyond the realm of nature (as that quote states).

I'm not sure I understand why you can't grasp that science doesn't have anything to do with supernatural stuff...

Date: 2009/10/20 13:40:46, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,13:05)
Quote
Floyd is no longer able to sustain arguments in support of his Five Flunktastic Fallacies.

Just curious, Amadan:  what was your specific refutation to the Fourth and Fifth Incompatibilities?

I'm actually more curious as to what YOUR responses are to the THREE people who have disassembled ALL five Big Fat Fallacies.

Dude... google... I'll note that you
1) didn't post a link
2) didn't post the author
3) didn't post the forum/thread

Now, here's the google results... just the info that comes on google mind you.  Since you don't have a problem taking things out of context, it should be a big deal right.

Quote
#
Baptist Press - Evolution incompatible with Christianity, Mohler ...
October 15, 2009. SECTION. BP News · BP en Español · BP Sports · BP Cartoons. BP on Assignment. FEATURES. SBC in the News · Culture Digest ...
www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=21375 - Cached - Similar -


no information that actually matches the search terms

Quote

#
Evolution incompatible with Christianity
Evolution incompatible with Christianity. First published: Creation 15(4):22. September 1993. 'People seem to think that Christianity and evolution do or ...
https://www.answersingenesis.com/docs/1300.asp - Cached - Similar -


"People seem to think that Christianity and evolution"

And we all know answers in Genesis is always factually correct...

Quote

The Incompatibility of Biblical Christianity and Evolution ...
The purpose of this paper will be to briefly demonstrate that Biblical Christianity and naturalistic evolution are incompatible as belief systems or ...
theologyandsteak.wordpress.com/.../the-incompatibility-of-biblical-christianity-and-evolution/ - Cached - Similar -


A paper at the "Theology and Steak" blog.  It's almost too easy... naw, is it a paper napkin... is a steak a direct production of god, or was a cow involved?

Quote

WikiAnswers - Are Christianity and the theory of evolution ...
Religion and Spirituality question: Are Christianity and the theory of evolution incompatible? Many Christians (including the late Pope John-Paul) are able ...
wiki.answers.com/.../Are_Christianity_and_the_theory_of_evolution_incompatible - Cached - Similar -


That's a good question and the answer is obvious to everyone (including the late Pope John-Paul) (someone I trust more than an unknown web denzion, except with young boys... well maybe not)

Quote

Get Answers - Answers in Genesis
Why is evolution so dangerous for Christians to believe? ... Evolution incompatible with Christianity · The god of an old Earth · Jacques Monod vs Theistic ...
www.answersingenesis.org/get.../topic/creation-compromises - Cached - Similar -


Again, AiG...

Quote

Lee Strobel on the case for the intelligent design movement ...
Random, undirected evolution is incompatible with Christianity, says a well-known evangelical author.
www.beliefnet.com/News/.../The-Case-For-A-Creator.aspx - Cached - Similar -


See, even in the precis from google, creationists can't get their definitions straight.  Random, undirected evolution is incompatible with... well... evolution.

I could go on, but what's the point.  If I look hard enough on the internet I can also find belief in a flying spagetti monster that talks like a pirate.

Try providing some valid resources... AND ANSWER THE BLOODY QUESTIONS!

Date: 2009/10/20 13:41:58, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,13:40)
Quote
Argumentum ad Google?

Nope.  A mere observation.  Not intended to prove anything, but worth noting all the same.
You may be tempted to pretend such people don't exist, you may tempted to pretend that all Catholics don't see any incompatibility in there.  

But they do.  Many people do.  They can tell, even though they believe in evolution anyway.  I merely offered the reminder from an ordinary lay Catholic.  Seemed appropriate for this forum.

Prove the poster in that case was a lay catholic... oh and while you your at it... ANSWER THE BLOODY QUESTIONS.

Date: 2009/10/20 14:22:16, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,14:01)
Quote
Prove the poster in that case was a lay catholic.

He said he was Catholic.  Didn't say he was a (insert deacon or clergy title here.)

But hey, I could be wrong, maybe's he not a layperson at all.  Maybe he's a Vatican Cardinal, surfing the Net incognito from St Peters' Basilica.  Yeah, that's gotta be it.

In which case you still have the same thing.  Apparently Vatican Cardinals can tell that there's some kind of incompatibility between evolution and Christianity.

LOL... we've reach "he said" level... and my dad can hit your dad with a .50 bullet from 1800 yards away... whoopty freaking do.

Let's see
"Pope Pius XII, a deeply conservative man, directly addressed the issue of evolution in a 1950 encyclical, Humani Generis.  The document makes plain the pope’s fervent hope that evolution will prove to be a passing scientific fad, and it attacks those persons who “imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution …explains the origin of all things.”  Nonetheless, Pius XII states that nothing in Catholic doctrine is contradicted by a theory that suggests one specie might evolve into another—even if that specie is man."
--http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html

That was two popes ago and they still haven't changed their mind... they have apparently gotten even more sure that there is incompatible with evolution.  

The present pope and JOhn Paul were both cardinals as well... so that statement of yours is false.

Now, answer the questions.

Date: 2009/10/20 15:23:33, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 20 2009,15:10)

Have you ever read the Bible Floyd?  I have... and well... 1 Peter 2:18 (New International Version)

18Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

and from the OT (which I think is more relevent in this case)

Deuteronomy 21:10-11
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives,
   11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife


I grow weary of this he said/she said crap.  Oh, just for posterities sake... you have a pile of unanswered questions and refutations that you still haven't dealt with.

Stop with this line, you'll only embarrass yourself... not that I expect the ID in science class to be any better.

Date: 2009/10/20 16:41:46, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Equality in the Bible:

Ezra 10:1-44 (10:2-3, 10-12, 44) RSV

"We have broken faith with our God and have married foreign women from the peoples of the land...let us make a covenant with our God TO PUT AWAY ALL THESE WIVES AND THEIR CHILDREN, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law...Ezra the priest...said to them, "You have trespassed and married foreign women, and so increased the guilt of Israel. Now then make confession to the Lord the God of your fathers, and do his will; separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives." Then all the assembly answered with a loud voice, "It is so; we must do as you have said...All these had married foreign women, AND THEY PUT THEM AWAY WITH THEIR CHILDREN."


Deuteronomy 23:2-3, 6  RSV

"No bastard shall enter the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the Lord. NO Ammonite or _MOABITE_ SHALL ENTER THE ASSEMBLY OF THE LORD, _EVEN_ TO THE TENTH GENERATION _NONE_ BELONGING TO THEM SHALL ENTER THE ASSEMBLY OF THE LORD _FOR_EVER_;


Nehemiah 13:23-27 RSV

"In those days also I saw the Jews who had married women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab...I contended with them and CURSED THEM and beat some of them and pulled out their hair; and I made them take an oath in the name of God, saying, "You shall not give your daughters to their sons or for yourselves...Shall we do all this great evil and act treacherously against our God by marrying foreign women?"


Equality for 'my people' and everyone else can hang, you mean.

BTW: Why won't you answer the questions and comment on the refutations to your big five fallacies?

I don't even expect an answer at this point.  I just want to know why you WON'T answer the questions or make the posts you said you would make.

Date: 2009/10/21 08:54:19, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,08:29)
Quote
Nowhere in evolution is there anything about racism.

Ever read The Descent of Man, FrankH?

Darwin reasoned that most of the visual differences between human races were superficial—issues of skin color and hair type—and that most of the mental differences were merely cases of "civilization" or a lack of it.

What's your point?

Oh, how about answering the questions we've asked and making your own points instead of asking us if we've read a book that you obviously haven't.

What does this have to do with whether science is incompatible with christianity?

The bible discussion, while silly, was more fruitfus than this.  The bible ACTIVELY discusses and approves slavery and inequality (as shown in the bible verses below).

Now my question to you is: IS THE BIBLE LITERALLY TRUE...

Here, since you most likely will ignore this question, I'll answer for you.

YES: Oh, well in that case, as shown by the above statements, the bible contradicts itself on a variety of matters (including slavery/servitude), the lineage of Jesus, and the order of the 'creation'.

Therefore the answer to my question must be NO: because the bible contradicts itself, so some statements must be 'interpreted' by the reader... in which case: "How do you know which statements can/should be taken literally and which can/should be interpreted?"

By the way, Why won't you answer the questions asked of you?

Date: 2009/10/21 09:12:52, Link
Author: OgreMkV
No, I'm not clear on that Floyd.  Because everything that you have stated to date applies not only to evolution, but to all science.

Does God make the planets stay in orbit or does gravity?
You see, orbital mechanics 'specifically excludes God' because Newton and Einstein can describe that motion ENTIRELY without god.

You pick on evolution because it offends you.  Just admit it and let's move on.

BTW: Why won't you answer questions asked of you?

Date: 2009/10/21 10:31:26, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Fallacies used by Floyd to date

Ad hominem: an argument that attacks the person who holds a view or advances an argument, rather than commenting on the view or responding to the argument.
Argument from fallacy: if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion is also fallacious.
Bare assertion fallacy: premise in an argument is assumed to be true purely because it says that it is true.
Suppressed correlative: where a correlative is redefined so that one alternative is made impossible.
Fallacy of necessity: a degree of unwarranted necessity is placed in the conclusion based on the necessity of one or more of its premises.
False dilemma (false dichotomy): where two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.
Homunculus fallacy: where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this usually leads to regressive middle-man. Explanations without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process.
Masked man fallacy: the substitution of identical designators in a true statement can lead to a false one.
Naturalistic fallacy: a fallacy that claims that if something is natural, then it is good or right.  (Theistic fallacy?!?!?)
Nirvana fallacy: when solutions to problems are said not to be right because they are not perfect.
Negative Proof fallacy: that, because a premise cannot be proven false, the premise must be true; or that, because a premise cannot be proven true, the premise must be false.
Package-deal fallacy: consists of assuming that things often grouped together by tradition or culture must always be grouped that way
Red Herring: also called a "fallacy of relevance." This occurs when the speaker is trying to distract the audience by arguing some new topic, or just generally going off topic with an argument.

Existential fallacy: an argument has two universal premises and a particular conclusion, but the premises do not establish the truth of the conclusion.
Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam): signifies that it has been discussed extensively (possibly by different people) until nobody cares to discuss it anymore
Appeal to ridicule: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous
Argument from ignorance ("appeal to ignorance"): The fallacy of assuming that something is true/false because it has not been proven false/true. For example: "The student has failed to prove that he didn't cheat on the test, therefore he must have cheated on the test."
Begging the question ("petitio principii"): where the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises
Burden of proof: refers to the extent to which, or the level of rigour with which, it is necessary to establish, demonstrate or prove something for it to be accepted as true or reasonable to believe
Circular cause and consequence: where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause
Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard): appears to demonstrate that two states or conditions cannot be considered distinct (or do not exist at all) because between them there exists a continuum of states. Correlation does not imply causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc): a phrase used in the sciences and the statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not imply that one causes the other
Equivocation (No true Scotsman): the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)
Fallacies of distribution
Division: where one reasons logically that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts
Ecological fallacy: inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong
Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum): someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.
Fallacy of the single cause ("joint effect", or "causal oversimplification"): occurs when it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
False attribution: occurs when an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument
contextomy (Fallacy of quoting out of context): refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning
Historian's fallacy: occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision. It is not to be confused with presentism, a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas (such as moral standards) are projected into the past.
Inconsistent comparison: where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison
Intentional fallacy: addresses the assumption that the meaning intended by the author of a literary work is of primary importance
Loki's Wager: the unreasonable insistence that a concept cannot be defined, and therefore cannot be discussed.
Moving the goalpost (raising the bar): argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded
Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium)
Prosecutor's fallacy: a low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found
Psychologist's fallacy: occurs when an observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event
Reification (hypostatization): a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea.
Special pleading: where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption
Cherry picking: act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position
Composition: where one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some (or even every) part of the whole
Misleading vividness: involves describing an occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem
Overwhelming exception (hasty generalization): It is a generalization which is accurate, but comes with one or more qualifications which eliminate so many cases that what remains is much less impressive than the initial statement might have led one to assume
Spotlight fallacy: when a person uncritically assumes that all members or cases of a certain class or type are like those that receive the most attention or coverage in the media
Ad hominem: attacking the person instead of the argument. A form of this is reductio ad Hitlerum.
Argumentum ad baculum ("appeal to force", "appeal to the stick"): where an argument is made through coercion or threats of force towards an opposing party
Argumentum ad populum ("appeal to belief", "appeal to the majority", "appeal to the people"): where a proposition is claimed to be true solely because many people believe it to be true
Association fallacy (guilt by association)
Appeal to authority: where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it
Appeal to consequences: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument that concludes a premise is either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences for a particular party
Appeal to emotion: where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning
Appeal to fear: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side
Wishful thinking: a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason
Appeal to spite: a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party
Appeal to motive: where a premise is dismissed, by calling into question the motives of its proposer
Appeal to novelty: where a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern
Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio): a conclusion based on silence or lack of contrary evidence
Appeal to tradition: where a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it has a long-standing tradition behind it
Genetic fallacy: where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.
Straw man argument: based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position
Style over substance fallacy: occurs when one emphasizes the way in which the argument is presented, while marginalizing (or outright ignoring) the content of the argument
Texas sharpshooter fallacy: information that has no relationship is interpreted or manipulated until it appears to have meaning
Two wrongs make a right: occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out

There's 4 or 5 I didn't include because he'll use them when it comes to the ID is science part.

Date: 2009/10/21 10:38:23, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,10:20)
Quote
Why won't you answer questions asked of you?

Did you ever provide that documentation I asked of you?  

(No you didn't.  Why not work on that for a while?  You made your claim upfront.  I sincerely asked for documentation of it.  Simply a matter of counting the number of thread quotations.  Why won't you provide documentation?)

The question wasn't about me...

let me rephrase; "Why do you consistantly refuse to answer questions asked of you?"

If you can find a case were I have not provided evidence, then I apoligize... however, you not being able to understand the evidence is not my problem.  

Again, out of all the things I've said in the last two days, you choose this one to harp on...whatever dude.  Like I said, you're just embarassing yourself.

Date: 2009/10/21 10:48:02, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Doc Bill @ Oct. 21 2009,10:45)
FL, I thought you were finished 57 pages ago.

The brain is dead... it's just taking a while for the body to quit twitching.

Date: 2009/10/21 13:31:35, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,13:23)
Quote
Wow.  I am in awe of this guy's complete inability to grasp such a simple point.

In short, you have no answer for the actual reply that was given, so you just kinda blow it off.  Okay!

Again, your inability to understand the aswer is not our problem.  If you need help understanding it, then please ask for assistance.  

Please, tell me why you refuse to answer the questions asked of you and why you refuse to comment on the three different refutations of your big five whatchmacallits.

Date: 2009/10/21 14:52:41, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,14:45)
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

Show me one research paper that discusses evolution of the soul.  Show me one research paper that shows the soul exists.  Show me where the soul resides.  Hmmm... can't (won't same difference).  Therefore the soul is not only not considered as emerging from living matter, it is not considered at all.

You assume something is true without evidence and use that to base your entire argument on.  Can't do that.


Aside: I got five bucks that says Floyd will not meet his self imposed timeline for the ID is science discussion.

Date: 2009/10/21 15:41:12, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Dignity of man?!??!  That's another false statement... pretty funny too.

Seriously Floyd, do you really understand that just because you say something doesn't mean it's true or even valid?  Then when you say something stupid like "dignity of man is directly grounded in God creating humans in his own image" and base your entire claim on that, you wonder why we don't understand your point.  

It's not that we don't understand.  It's that you are just saying things.  There's no evidence there, just an assertation that you happen to like.  

Please do a search on "Lady Gaga" and tell me that humans have dignity.

Date: 2009/10/21 20:03:22, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 21 2009,18:11)
Meanwhile, I'm going to push back my scheduled postings by one day.   Might as well take my time about this stuff, it won't change anything.  
Sometime Friday evening, I'll do the shortened "Biblical perspective On Biology", and use Saturday (Oct 24) for the main "ID is science" presentation.  On Sunday, I'll go ahead and write my final summary of "Evolution is Incompatible With Christianity" even though we'll be debating the "ID as science" issue all the way up to (or through) Nov. 1.

Less than 12 hours before he postponed some stuff... LOL.  Does he owe me five bucks?

Floyd, why won't you answer the questions you've been asked?  Really, I really want to know why you don't answer the majority of the questions you've been asked.

When you get to the ID part, I have 6 questions.  Will you answer them.  Because if I have to post them 4 or 5 times a day, the rest of the group might get annoyed.  

How about this?  If you answer my six questions, using real science (since that's what you'll be arguing), I'll give you a cookie.

Date: 2009/10/22 22:57:10, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Man, what's sad is Floyd wouldn't even take my bet.

Although I will say some research by others here was most interesting and I have learned a fair bit.  Unfortunately for Floyd, every bit of it pointed out in painful detail how totally unprepared for this he was.

Aside: If he comes back, I wonder what bit of inanity he will choose to comment on rather than the actual issues.

Date: 2009/10/23 09:39:31, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,09:28)
Quote
How a finite and imperfect being can actually "know" a supposedly infinite and perfect being is beyond me.  Personally, I think that is the height of arrogance and hubris.

Hmmm.  Suppose I mentioned to you that you're actually insulting God Himself by what you said there.
 
Quote
Jeremiah 24:7 NKJV)

[b]"Then I will give them a heart to know Me, that I am the LORD; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God, for they shall return to Me with their whole heart."

God Himself is the one making the offer to humans to get to know him.  Offer is open to you too, like all of us.

He didn't say you had to personally understand all the mechanics of the deal first.  He's just making the offer and if you give Him permission, (honestly and sincerely give Him permission, and don't take it back), then He can go to work on enabling you to know Him.

Evangilism = Fail

Two posts and nothing answered and you have less than 24 hours for your self imposed deadline.

Hey, while you're writing: WHY WON'T YOU ANSWER QUESTIONS ASKED OF YOU OR RESPOND TO THE CRITQUES OF YOUR BFFs?

Date: 2009/10/23 10:15:54, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I'll digress for a minute if I may.  

Yes floyd, it was SCIENCE (not just evolution) that pretty much changed how I thought about things.  You see, I learned to think logically.  I learned to consider all sides to an arguement.  I learned to do research.  Indeed, I learned how to learn.  [All of which, I notice, you fail to do.]

And then, I had people like you screaming in my ear constantly about how science and the bible were incompatible.  That little bit of indoctrination seemed to take.  I believed them that science and the bible were incompatible.  However, after my research and studying and reading, I knew someone had lied to me... and it wasn't science.

When I looked at my church, I saw pastors who were always "called" to preach at larger churches for a better salary.  I saw deacons who were so hungover, they could barely pass the collection plate.  I saw ministers frolicking with their secretaries.  Then I went to college and saw a bunch of scientists quietly working away and solving the problems that church said couldn't be solved.  The problems caused by sin.

Are all scientists perfect, of course not.  Are all christians immoral, unethical liars, no.  However, at least the scientists are not hypocrits about it.

In my personal opinion, Chrisitianity, as you define it (and most other fundamentalists define it) is incomaptible with science... not because of science, but because of the dogma of religion.  

Perhaps if some of those religious leaders had been moral, ethical, and kind, I might have remained a Christian.  If some of those religious leaders had stayed in their churches instead of trying to challenge science, I might have stayed a Christian.  If some of those religious leaders had kept to their bibles instead of pushing into classrooms and politics, I might have remained a Christian.  Had those religious leaders not FORCED me to CHOOSE between science and religion, then I might have remained a Christian.  But they didn't and I'm not.  

I'll restate my position because you must have missed it the first time... It is strictly because of people like you that I am not a Christian.  

I answered your question, I think I deserve an answer to mine.

Why won't you answer the questions asked of you or respond to the critiques of your BFFs?

Date: 2009/10/23 10:39:35, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,10:28)
Quote
Do snakes talk?

Do donkeys talk?

Can a big fish swallow a person without killing him?

Can what an animal is looking at while mating affect the traits of the offspring?

All four of those items would require supernatural action.  But the Bible says all four events actually took place in history, all the same.  Literally.

But you don't believe the Bible on those items.

So tell me something  Henry.  The Resurrection of Jesus Christ.  You believe the Bible on THAT one?  Literally?  

I await your answer.

I notice you didn't mention that the bible considers bats to be birds and that rabbits chew cud and spiders are insects?  

Those don't require miracles Floyd, those are observation problems that a large group of primitive sheep herders couldn't understand.

How about this for literal?  If a gang comes to my house and wants to rape a guest, then I am required (by the bible) to give my virgin daughter to the gang instead of my guest.  Have you done this Floyd?  Woud you?

Here's another question for you: How come you get to ask questions and get all indignant if we don't answer, but you don't have to answer questions?

But we're totally digressing from the point here.  You were supposed to convince us that the Chrisitanity and Science were incompatible.  You have failed to do so.  Even though my personal opinion is that you are correct, it is my personal opinion.  Yet, even with the presuposition that I think your statement is correct, you still haven't been able to prove it to me.  I am much more swayed by the logical statements made by others that they believe and can do science than your ravings.

You've got just more than 12 hours to finish your summary and get on to ID in the classroom.  I'll bet 20 bucks that you don't go there at all.  That discussion will crucify you and you can become a martyr to Dembski or whatever Dembski wants to do with you.

Just so you know, you aren't doing your causes (Christianity and ID) any favors here.

Date: 2009/10/23 11:08:44, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Genesis 19
Sodom and Gomorrah Destroyed
1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
     "No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."


Keep in mind that the men who were guests were angels of the lord.  Lot was a very holy man, in fact, he was holy that he and his daughters were the only survivors of the two cities (of course his daughters weren't that holy were they?)  Yet, this supremely holy man offered his daughters to a bunch of rapists so that his guests would not be harmed.

I have heard many sermons on 'doing as Lot'.

Now, I've answered TWO questions TODAY.

Answer mine...

Date: 2009/10/23 11:15:43, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,11:03)
Quote
You were supposed to convince us that the Chrisitanity and Science were incompatible.

Nope.  The thread topic is "Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity."  

The thread topic was repeated multiple times on multiple pages.  You know that's the topic.

The scientific method is compatible with Christianity.  However, evolution is NOT compatible with Christianity.

No Floyd, it is not at all clear and it's obvious that you don't want to go there.

If you put Evolution in that spot, then ANY SCIENCE will go in that spot.  I notice you don't hold astronomy as incompatible with Christianity because astronomy shows that the sky is not a tent with holes poked in it.   You don't attack cosmology for the Big Bang Theory.  You don't attack geometry because Pi is 3.141529 (not 3 as stated in the bible).  You don't attack geography because the Earth doesn't have four corners.

Again, you're picking on evolution because it offends you personally.  You find it offensive that a 200,000th cousin of yours is a chimpanzee.  You can't accept that.

What you continually fail to realize is that all of the sciences cause problems with your 'personal revelation about the bible'.  The scientific method does not cause problems (with you) in the Bible.  However, the conclusions that result from many, many branches of science DO conflict with the supposed inerrancy of the bible.

Date: 2009/10/23 12:23:18, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,12:13)
Quote
Yet, this supremely holy man offered his daughters to a bunch of rapists so that his guests would not be harmed.

You directly said the Bible required this specific kind of behavior.

Show me where, please.    :)

You're right, the bible does not specifically "require" this behavior.  

However, the behavior itself is in the bible.  

Now, I've answered two of your questions today, I've even offered an apology for a my intpretations of a verse vs. the actuality of the verse.  

Now, when are you going to answer my questions?  I'm really starting to understand why you get called 'chickenshit' a lot.

Date: 2009/10/23 12:44:16, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,12:21)
Quote
If you put Evolution in that spot, then ANY SCIENCE will go in that spot.

On exactly what basis?  Is it because the practitioners of "any science" have published the clear-cut Incompatibility Statements that have been given by professional evolutionist scientists?  NOPE, they've been silent WRT the Big Five in their textbooks and journals.

Again, on exactly what basis?  A clearly-documented, clearly-refuted conflation of naturalism/materialism with science?  The conditions of refutation have been specified and quoted verbatim in this thread.

You guys have NOT come up with a Plan C, so that's it.  

Hence your statement is refuted Ogre.

No Dummy!  Read carefully and parse correctly.

Your BFF have no impact on everything else you are saying.

You say (paraphrase): The bible must be interpretted literally.

If that is true, then the following sciences (and maths) are NOT compatible with the bible:

Astronomy: Says that the ligths in the sky are stars and not, as claimed in the bible, pin pricks in a tent that let light through.
Cosmology: Says the universe was created in the big bang, not directly from God.
Geology: Says that a universal Naochian flood never happened.
Geometery: Says that Pi is 3.142926 (ad infinitum) instead of the biblical value of exactly 3.
Nutrition: Says that carbohydrates cannot be converted to proteins outside of bodily chemical reactiosn (as the bible claims).
Chemistry: Says that water cannot be chemically converted into complex alcohols (as the bible claims).
Chemistry: (Conservation of Mass) Says that 3 fishes and 5 loaves cannot feed hundreds of people, as the bible claims.

Now, if you invoke a miracle for these things to occur, why do refuse to invoke a miracle for evolution?

Date: 2009/10/23 12:46:34, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,12:41)
Okay, I think Henry's remarks constituted a good point to start doing Biblical Perspective on Biology.  

But first, if you'll repeat the questions you want answered Ogre, I'll go ahead and do 'em.  You many not like the answers, (and I may repeat some if it's the same ole questions), but go ahead and ask.

My question is: Why do you continually refuse to answer questions asked of you and refuse to comment on the critiques (I should say 'complete destruction', but I'm being charitable) of your BFFs (that you said you would do)?

Date: 2009/10/23 13:08:55, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,12:49)
Ogre, I'm putting off doing the Perspective so that you can give me any specific questions you want answered that I didn't previously answer in your view.  The offer won't be here long.

look at the post three minutes ahead of yours.  I don't care about the answers to the actual questions... that's a moot point.

I want to know WHY you refused to answer them and WHY you refused to comment on the three people who posted full refutations of your entire BFF (especially considering you said you would).

Date: 2009/10/23 13:23:53, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 23 2009,13:13)
As for CM, I'm sure we could be neighbors with no ill effect

I agree totally.  Personally, I'd rather be having this debate with CM.

Date: 2009/10/23 14:29:42, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 23 2009,14:17)
Quote
Ogre, I'm putting off doing the Perspective so that you can give me any specific questions you want answered that I didn't previously answer in your view.  The offer won't be here long.

Okay, this offer is off the table now.  Gotta move on.

<DONS tool="Precognitive goggles">

LOL and this is probably the excuse he will use when this mythical 'statement of improbability' or whatever he calls it, does not appear on time.

</DONS>

FLoyd, the question was there long before the offer went on the table and will remain long after this thread is closed.

Date: 2009/10/23 18:06:04, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Epic Evangelism Fail

Wow, you are a real piece of work.  Only you, and other fundamentalists, could scream for days that the bible is literal and refuse to discuss instances were it's literal, but you don't like it.

OK, Well back to the topic at hand.  The validity of the bible is a whole nother subject.  You're job is convince us that evolution (and all other science) is incompatible with the bible.  You have failed miserably.  As a last resort, you attempt to witness.  Sigh, at this point, you are so untrustworthy, is it any wonder a lot of people reject god.  If he's anything like you, he's a total ass.

So, you have 6 hours left on your self imposed deadline.  I predict Epic Fail.

Date: 2009/10/23 21:55:43, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Two hours to go Floyd until you miss your self imposed deadline.  

Man are you going to get pummeled if you try to bring us ID is science.  Is it wrong of me to be looking forward to it.

Meh, what am I saying.  We'd have to hit Floyd with a supertanker to get his attention.

Date: 2009/10/24 09:10:59, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Now 9 hours past the self imposed deadline.

Date: 2009/10/24 12:10:46, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I'm actually very curious about his behavior.

Does Floyd really think it's OK to lie, if he's lying for Jesus?
Does Floyd really think that it's OK to take people's statements out of context?  He's get bent out of shape if we do it, so he must know.
Does Floyd really think that his version of Christianity is really the way it should be?

Date: 2009/10/24 22:24:56, Link
Author: OgreMkV
He has 1.5 hours left and then he misses both of his own self-imposed deadlines.

Lazy, incompetent, or scared.

Date: 2009/10/25 13:39:15, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Hey Floyd, if you ever decide to actually read this thread and answer some questions... here's one for you.

Let's just say that each of the quotes you made were actually correct.  How exactly would that change any of the 150 years of research on evolution?  How exactly would those 5 or 6 quotes 'destroy the foundations of evolution'?
Would antibiotic resistance suddenly stop?  Would 20 years of Lenski's research suddenly change to not showing evolution of novel functions?

Date: 2009/10/26 11:22:34, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 26 2009,09:41)
Frank Zappa once observed that the symbology of being punished for eating fruits of the tree of knowledge of life and death indicated a profound anti-intellectualism at the core, yet to have real power in this world, information is an absolute necessity.  

I would disagree with this part of the statement.  I guess it depends on how you define power.  

In terms of political power, intelligence appears to be not required, perhaps even selected against.  It seems to me that the smart people are off busy with things that are important, like saving lives and keep aircraft in the air.  While politicians (and lawyers for that matter) sit around and ignore the reams of data that shows their pet ideology is stupid.  Instead they create false dichotomies to convince people that their very lives are at stake unless they follow the 'leader'.  

The smart people keep saying, 'look you idiots...', but unless the smart people are willing to try for political power, we will always have the least intelligent people as leaders... some with access to squadrons of fighter-bombers and nuclear weapons.

Consider monetary power.  There are few smart people that are really wealthy.  (Bill Gates does NOT count.)  Again, the smart people seem to just want to do their thing.  The unethical take advantage of smart people (and the system) to gain monetary power... and do whatever they have to to keep that power.

Unless the smart people want to pull an Atlas Shrugged (and I'm not saying that's a bad plan), the smart people will have to step up into the political and monetary arenas and fight to keep things even reasonable.  I mean, you really ought to see what these idiots are trying to do in Texas.  Our "history expert" hired by the school board at great expense doesn't even know where Rosa Parks made her stand (as it where).

Date: 2009/10/26 12:36:03, Link
Author: OgreMkV
In advance: Sorry for the threadjack.

OK, so you're saying that politicians are smart, but act in the manner that will best keep them in office.  I can buy that, up to a point.  Maybe this is true at the federal level, but at the state level or local level.  Maybe if you replaced 'smart' with 'animal cunning' it would be a more accurate description.  I've seen some really dumb people make it into office on the local level (I've even run against some of them), but of course, they say what the people want to hear.

The result, however, is the same.  Poor decisions by leaders.

My favorite passage from a Dilbert book (with respect to Scott Adams).  
"Ask one hundred of the smartest people in the world about something that the politicians disagree on.  If the one hundred smartest people also disagree on it, then intelligence is useless in political decision making.  If the one hundred smartest people all agree on one course of action, then intelligence is very important to decision making, but politics nullifies it.  Either way, it's scary."

Date: 2009/10/26 12:54:18, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Can we make this a new thread?  I'm interested in this discussion, mainly because I rarely get to have this level of discourse (at least one that doesn't involve me visiting my mother-in-law).

I'll hold off for a bit and marshal my thoughts.  And unlike Floyd, I will actually post some thoughts.

Date: 2009/10/26 13:27:10, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Now, this is thinking out loud here, so bear with me.

On Going Galt:  There would be nothing that would prevent a singleton or small group from 'selling out' back into the world.  However, that presupposes two things 1) that the rest of the world would be interested in buying and 2) that there are not significantly limited resources in the enclave (i.e. if you sell these, then we all starve or run out of O2)  How exactly would that be bad?

Anyway, the point behind an enclave as envisioned by Rand would be no contact mainly because such contact is intellectually impossible.  It wasn't so much dealing with stupidity that caused them to leave, it was the stupidity of the rules.  Taxing the people who work to provide for the people who don't.  Taking innovation and distributing it to everyone for the sake of 'fairness'. etc.  

OK back to power:

To me: Power is the ability to get something done.  (In science that would be work, but politicians don't do 'work'.)  The thing you want done is immaterial (unlike Hobbes).  If you have money, you can pay to have something done.  If you have political power, there are lots of ways to get something done.  If you have some percieved authority, you can command it be done.

deadman:
 Well, in your example, each of the players has power.  Only the engineer can fix the ship, but he has been 'trained' to accept the authority of the captain. This can apply in almost any condition.

 To everyone it's obvious that the engineer has the power... except to the engineer.

In terms of creationism, the few true zealots have spent decades indoctrinating people to accept the power that they assume for themselves as 'the chosen of god' or whatever.  They use fear of hell and moral rightesnous to cement their power.  Believe me, nothing motivates the populace to go vote like a preacher saying that they ought to vote a certain way.  

Because people have granted them a small amount of power (much like politicians), then they begin a campaign to cemet that power.  Then, sometimes under the highest of ideals, they (religious and political leaders) begin to increase their power.

end ramble.

Date: 2009/10/26 13:55:28, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I notice that you didn't say a single thing about people who don't believe that the bible is literal truth, yet are totally complete Christians.

Date: 2009/10/26 14:45:51, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 26 2009,13:46)
Well, you seem to be emphasizing ideological power over other forms, which is kind of problematic from a historical-archaeological POV -- if that's what you're suggesting.

Either way, it's still information that underlies religious or other ideological powers. This is why it becomes "mystified," to use a social science term.

Religious leaders claim to have special access to knowledge (information) that is granted them by (an, a) ancestor/spirit/god/gods. They use rituals and language that is designed to mystify outsiders and confer special status on the holders of power.

I try to see things from as simple a view as possible, in regard to social complexity. I prefer looking at hunter-gatherers first, then move up the social-complexity chain. Look at how shamans operate.

I agree with that.  I mean look at L. Ron Hubbard.

But then again, the entire politcal process (as practiced in America and I, believe, the UK as well) and judicial processes have many of the same 'mystical' trappings to the uninitiated.  

Is it inherit in humanity to want to be special and therefore use mysteries to control others?  If this is the case, then is intelligence required to be a leader or is it more intuition akin to animal cunning?

Date: 2009/10/26 14:56:19, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Yes floyd, several people did.  Again, we can't help it if you can't see it because of your belief blinders.

That was the reason we spent 12 or so pages on slavery and women's rights in the bible.  Because if the bible is so literal that the Earth was created in 6 days, then beating slaves and selling your daughter is acceptable.  If those are not acceptable, then there are some serious concerns with a literal interpretation of the bible.

Finally, I'll ask again (as others have), if part of the bible is to be taken literally and part metaphorically, how do you know which is which?

Date: 2009/10/26 17:13:01, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Let's just say, for funnies, that some number of people in the US believed special creation over evolutionary theory.

How exactly does that change any of the thousands of experiments that show evolution?  How does that change 200 years of paleontology?  How does that change 200 years of geology?  How does that change anything?

In other words, who cares.  No evidence is very simply no evidence.  And you ain't got none.

Date: 2009/10/26 21:09:23, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I think the disturbing thing to me is that these groups/people that gain some measure of power, suddenly feel as if they are the answer to everything and they know all.  

I mean, consider Floyd.  He really doesn't have a clue as to why we don't see his vision.  He has been indoctrinated for (probably) all of life that a certain way is correct.  When presented with reality, he can't say that he's wrong without ripping the rug out from under his whole life.

Same thing with politicians.  Scientists and researchers can present thousands of facts and studies that show x is really actually a good thing.  But to someone who has voted against x for a long time, admitting being wrong is worse than death itself.

We look at these people and say, 'Geez, they're dumb'... and maybe they are.  Or maybe they don't have the courage to stand up and say, 'wow, that changes everything'.  Or maybe they really have been brainwashed so much that they really CAN'T see reality.

Again, the scary part is that these are the people in control of our lives, in a very real sense.  Almost the entire Texas School Board is made up of these religious nuts.  They want everyone to vote against allowing state money to be used for university research grants, 'because those schools should be teaching'.

I'm really nervous about my kid ending up a smart, but second class citizen, because he is smart.

Date: 2009/10/27 08:33:12, Link
Author: OgreMkV
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091025205016.htm

Evolutionary Past May Determine How We Choose Leaders

Too appropriate.

Date: 2009/10/27 10:08:06, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 27 2009,08:52)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 27 2009,08:33)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091025205016.htm

Evolutionary Past May Determine How We Choose Leaders

Too appropriate.

Ogre - from a sidebar headline on your link page:

Mathematical Model Shows McCain Ahead In Electoral College Votes

OOOPS! I think I found a great recruit for ID Science!

Quote mine!  Quote mine!

You forgot the date after the headline  "(Sep. 17, 2008)"

:D

Date: 2009/10/27 11:50:02, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Jasper @ Oct. 27 2009,11:26)
If you cannot rewrite Genesis 1-11 to make it fit evolution, you also cannot rewrite it to make it fit modern astronomy. Interestingly, Floyd seems to have no problem with modern astronomy.

Yep.  Floyd is personally offended by evolution because he believes he is better than an animal.  That is why he attacks it.

As has been pointed out many times... the entire thread here shows that Floyd's issue is not with evolution, but with science... for most sciences have data and conclusions that directly contradict the bible.

I'm still really curious about Floyd saying that Genesis is true in every word.  So, ummm... when was man formed?  Before plants and animals (as in Genesis 2) or after (as in Genesis 1).  

And how do we know which to use as truth and which is metaphorical or (as you claimed last time) details?

Date: 2009/10/27 12:42:34, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,12:30)
Quote
Yet another appeal to authority.

Hey, if you want to go directly to the Genesis biblical text itself, and CONFIRM that Gen. 1-11 were written as straight historical narrative, we can do that together.  

Or If you want to go to other Old Testament texts and confirm that the OT writers considered Genesis to be straight historical narrative, we can do that together.  

Or if you want to go to the NEW Testament and confirm that the NT writers (and Jesus too) considered Genesis to be straight historical narrative, we can do that too.

Which one you wanna do Frank?

So, which Genesis is it?  Chapter 1 (in which man was created last) or Chapter 2 (in which man was created first).

Which one is literal truth?

Date: 2009/10/27 13:46:31, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I have two questions for Floyd.  Since there seems be almost universal belief that the debate (at least as far as the incompatability between science and christianity go) is over, I want to know two things about Floyd's beliefs.

1) What evidence would persuade you that evolution is valid? Alternately, (or, if you wish, both) what evidence would persuade you that the literal creation in Genesis (Was it chapter 1 or 2?) is incorrect?

2) Would you tell me a lie to save my soul?

Date: 2009/10/27 14:44:49, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 27 2009,14:40)
Quote
Who wrote it, when did they write it?
Was it written before, after or during the creation event?
Were they an eyewitness to the creation event?

Moses.

Sometime during his adult life, perhaps while alone with God on Mount Sinai, (but that's just a guess.)

After.  

No.  God was there, so God told him about it.

Which version?  The one in chapter 1 or the one in chapter 2?

Date: 2009/10/27 14:58:34, Link
Author: OgreMkV
How about:

E) A copy of a copy of a copy of illiterate shepards passing down a creation fable that they copied from previous cultures.

Date: 2009/10/27 15:09:41, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 27 2009,13:46)
I have two questions for Floyd.  Since there seems be almost universal belief that the debate (at least as far as the incompatability between science and christianity go) is over, I want to know two things about Floyd's beliefs.

1) What evidence would persuade you that evolution is valid? Alternately, (or, if you wish, both) what evidence would persuade you that the literal creation in Genesis (Was it chapter 1 or 2?) is incorrect?

2) Would you tell me a lie to save my soul?

Hey FLoys, while we're answer your questions, how about these?

Or any of the others (dozens?) of questions you have yet to answer.

Do you even read this thread or you just a hit&run poster?

Date: 2009/10/27 15:37:28, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 27 2009,15:18)
And why do most of the reported begats only mention a father?

That's a cultural thing, because at the time, women were pretty much second class citizens.  I mean, you could sell your daughters for goodness sake.

This same cultural reference, of course, brings lie to the 'fix' employed to explain why two gospels have different lineages for Jesus.  One was Joseph and the other Mary.  But that make no cultural sense because no one followed women's lineage.  There was no reason, they couldn't even own property (hence the parable of the widow).

Anyway...

Floyd's statement about 'detail' or 'clarification' in 2 Genesis is kind of like a medical examiner saying 'cause of death was drowning, but in detail, the water flooded in all these 9mm holes in his chest'

Date: 2009/10/27 15:56:45, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 27 2009,15:37)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 26 2009,21:09)
I'm really nervous about my kid ending up a smart, but second class citizen, because he is smart.

THAT is a fascinating topic to me. It seems to me that in many cultures, "smart" is seen as a threat, particularly in the "West." It's seen all over the place, in the stereotypes and memes we use. Husbands in commercials are rock-dumb, women are "clever" but not smart, scientists are portrayed as nutty fuckers commonly. Smart seems to edge on madness in popular culture (and real life -- high-IQ people may well have a higher proportion of psychological issues by population percentages). At any rate, smart certainly appears to be threatening or scary in the popular view.

Contrast that to the "eastern" view of extolling early intelligence (youth) through to aged wisdom. There's something there that I can't quite put my finger on, but I think it may have to do with the peculiar trajectory that Eastern ancestor worship took, along with other factors. Maybe. I dunno, it's hard to get at such things.

Hmmm... You see, I grew up with a form of ancestor worship.  It wasn't really worship, but my grandfather was the man.  He was like my own personal John Wayne.  A very smart (both practical and book) man, very wise, slow to speak, slow to anger, always with time for explanations.

I have spent my entire adult life trying to not disappoint him (or his memory).

Compare that to the kids I used to teach.  Average was 40% of their fathers were in jail.  Another 20% did not know who their father was.  Most (according to an informal survey) spent less than 30 minutes a day 'with dad'... meaning if they both watched the Simpsons, that counted.

Yet, evolutionarily, those are the people we're breeding for.  I waited late for my one child.  Some of my female students in high school already had 2, some of the males could point to 4 or 5 children as theirs.  

When democracy is full of people like this, then the decisions of democratic leaders will not be optimal... for anyone.  The power really is in the people, just in the wrong people.

* Please don't get me wrong.  I am generalizing in a very broad way here.  This is not meant to be disrespectful to any group, race, creed, or whatever.  It applies to all of them.

Date: 2009/10/27 17:07:01, Link
Author: OgreMkV
See, I still disagree that 'information is power and currency in the modern world'.

People want what they want and no amount of information will change that.

At least where I was (briefly) involved in politics, I was all who you knew and who you were willing to do favors for.  Everyone 'knew' that the people in positions were crooked as a three dollar bill, but they still got elected again and again.

I'm not really sure how you mean information is key to power.  I can kinda see it's key to gaining power (who you know, but also what power you give up to them).  But it's also about restricting information to those that are not in power.  BY creating enough confusion in information, one can mask their role in 'questionable' events, even if those events are recorded for all time.

Sorry blathering here again.

Date: 2009/10/28 19:14:43, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Unfortunately, this is totally typical.  It's really depressing that the Texas school board is made up of idiots like Floyd.

I really have no hope for the teaching ID as science.  Floyd will do the following:

1) Claim that science must be redefined, then refuse to accept that his redefinition requires astrology, witchcraft, asgardian magik, and other such to be taught.

2) Blather on for 253 pages (approximately) about the problems of evolution with not a single statement supporting his position.

2a) Alternately he might (and probably will) bring up Behe, Dembski, and if we're really lucky Glen Rose man tracks.

2b) change his position (which was never defined anyway) as soon as someone posts a scathing reply with properly verified sources (unless the reply is on Sunday).

3) Epically fail to know anything about science, education, or government for that matter.

4) Continue to look like an IDiot.

5) Probably use the final argument "Neener neener"1

Date: 2009/10/29 10:07:25, Link
Author: OgreMkV
This is all very interesting Floyd, but instead of this total digresion...

1) you are now almost a week behind your self imposed schedule
2) you still have not answered many questions asked of you in the past few weeks
3) you still have not refuted the three persons who critiqued the bffs (in entirety)
4) you have not answered the one question which really negates all of these:  Is CM a Christian?

I think we ought to hold out for that answer.  All this biblical stuff, while interesting, is basically wanking.  Floyd believes is holds the ultimate authority, when it really doesn't.  

So floyd.  We're back to one question that you refuse to answer... Is CM a Christian?  

If he is, then all of your issues are moot because Christianity is not imcompatible with anything.

If he is not, then your definition of Christian does not match the definition as contained in the bible... which means that all your arguements are moot because you don't believe the bible either.

Date: 2009/10/29 12:35:28, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Just answer the question Floyd.  It's easy, if you think the answer is Yes... type 'y' and hit the 'add reply' button.  If No, then type 'n' and hit the 'add reply' button.

Why is this so difficult?

Is a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 required to be a Christian?

Date: 2009/10/29 12:56:26, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,12:45)
Quote
A person has to accept that Genesis 1-11 is literal history in order to be a Christian.

Nope, they don't have to.  

Well, that wasn't so hard was it?

Now we can move on to the attempt to get ID into my classroom.

Date: 2009/10/29 13:14:26, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,13:05)
Quote
Now we can move on to the attempt to get ID into my classroom

What do you teach, btw?  And what grade level?

Sorry, admit that you've spun a web that you can't get out of, and declare that we're moving on.  Then I'll be happy to talk about it.

BTW: deadman's, or anyone else's, religion or lack thereof are totally immaterial to this arguement.  Why don't you stick to the topic at hand.  
You used quotes to defend you position, we provided quotes and evidence showing you're quotes don't help you.
You used the bible to defend your position, we provided plenty of refuations and evidence showing the bible doesn't help your position.
Now, you're falling back to non sequiters to shore up your scattered ego.

You admit that a literal interpretation of genesis is not required to be a christian.  Therefore anything that genesis says, implies, or suggests, historical or not, is not required to be a part of chrisitanity.  

You using genesis to support your position that evolution (and all other sciences, though you refuse to admit it) is incompatible with Christianity is wrong.

Move on.  kthxbye

Date: 2009/10/29 13:59:30, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,13:27)
Quote
And there go your five "incompatibles."

Not even close, trust me on that.  (Or if you don't trust me, trust Rosenhouse!)

OMG, of course.  This statement makes it all clear.  That's the answer to everything.

I bow to your crushing grip on logic and reason...

Oh wait... nevermind.

Date: 2009/10/29 16:11:01, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,15:48)
Quote
Heh. Feeling desperate, Flody?

Nope.  Just stating the truth as I see it.

After all (ahemmm), I 'm not skeered to let readers know exactly what I believe and don't believe, even when it comes to core religious beliefs.

And there's the whole problem Floyd... truth as you see it.  Unfortunately, you're blinded by intolerance and stupidity disguised as religious zeal.

Then why won't you answer the question... nevermind.  It's not even worth arguing about at this point.

He lost, everyone except him knows he lost, and no one but him really cares.

Date: 2009/10/29 19:37:04, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 29 2009,19:18)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 29 2009,18:49)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 29 2009,14:10)
Turnabout is fair play, Floyd.  Time for you to behave like a grown-up.

I trust you're not foolish enough to hold your breath waiting for that...

I think it is fair to give him the opportunity to display adult behavior.  Confused, dishonest, and exasperating though he may be - he is trying to make an argument.  Unfortunately, he has to rely entirely on opinions about science, since he apparently doesn't understand the science itself.  And he does occasionally answer questions as well as he can, given his lights.

The really sad part is that he is so committed to ignorance, that he must ignore those who would be willing to teach him.  As my grandfather used to say, as soon as you stop learning, you start to die.

I find it frustrating that his zealousness for ignorance is so readily transmitted to young people.  Kids who should spend their time learning and questioning, instead spend their time arguing.

It's really very depressing for an educator.  I would love to sit down and explain how science works to Floyd and show him the wonder that is Biology, but he refuses to learn.  

I just wonder if it's ever even occurred to him that there is even the slimmest possibility that he might be wrong.  It wouldn't corrode his faith, it wouldn't destroy his faith in Jesus.  It would, generally speaking, make him a much nicer person to be around and a much more effective witness for his faith.

Sigh...

Date: 2009/10/29 19:50:20, Link
Author: OgreMkV
OK, I think I get your intention here.  But the knowledge and/or the information used in knowledge is not the same thing as intelligence.

I've read quite a bit about aerospace engineering, engine dynamics, etc and I'm fairly intelligent (though I may be deluding myself), but I can't build a spaceship.

Same way with politicians (and Floyd for example), they seem to have lots of  knowledge, but much of it is not paired with the ability to reason and use that knowledge for anything but self fulfillment.

That's more about what I talk about when I use knowledge, the ability to use it, not just know stuff.

Date: 2009/10/30 13:10:41, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Oh, has Floyd abandoned his other stuff now.  We're into ID is science?  Yay.  Let me get the laptop with my file on it...

Bwah ha hah... oops... was that out loud?

BTW: very subtle segue.

Date: 2009/10/30 14:37:58, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Now, you want to teach intelligent design in my classroom.  As with any science, there are certain things that have to be met.  The following are the questions that you MUST answer to even be considered a science… much less a correct science.

Questions for you Floyd:

1) What is one hypothesis that ID proposes?
2) What is one prediction of ID that differs from evolutionary theory?  (In other words, what predictions made using ID would differ from predictions made from evolution.  PREDICTIONS, not statements like ‘life is designed’.)
3) Describe an experiment that could test this prediction (this test need not have been done yet).
4) What is one hypothesis of ID that has been tested and shown to be correct (this must have been tested)?
5) What is one piece of evidence that would falsify ID (in other words, what evidence proves ID to be incorrect)?
6) Dembski, Nelson, and Behe have both stated that ID as a scientific theory needs a lot of work and is not ready for the limelight.  How do you respond to that statement from three of the largest figures of ID theory?**

Now, if you can’t or won’t answer questions 1-5, then ID is not science and must (by definition) be excluded from any science class.  If can’t answer them correctly, ditto.

Please keep in mind that YOU want to argue SCIENCE, so you must argue using science’s rules.  Changing the definition of science is not a valid response.  Keep in mind that it has been tried, but those changes to science also allow the teaching of astrology and witchcraft in science classes (I don’t think you want that do you?  I can teach Wiccan.).

As I’m sure you’re aware (since you think Texas has such a great science program), 40% of all class time for any science class in Texas public schools must be ‘laboratory’.  

7)  Please describe a lab that my students could do that would show ID in action and be able to show that ID, as as a science works and is distinct from evolution.

Finally, regardless of your ability to articulate a valid argument or not, there is at least one, non-scientific problem with ID in the classroom.  At the present time, it is illegal.  In Kitzmiller vs. Dover, Judge Jones, a federal judge, declared ID not to be science and including it in a classroom violated the establishment clause of the first amendment.  Basically, it’s not only that it’s not science, but ID promotes a SPECIFIC religion and that is not allowed in public schools.  You can’t teach Christianity in school any more than I can teach Wiccan in school.  


**At a 2002 conference on Intelligent Design, leading ID scholar William Dembski said: “Because of ID’s outstanding success at gaining a cultural hearing, the scientific research part of ID is now lagging behind.”  http://www.iscid.org/papers/Dembski_DisciplinedScience_102802.pdf

And

ID theoretician Paul Nelson wrote in Touchstone, a Christian magazine: “We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’ – but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.”
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/issue.php?id=76

And

“I quite agree that my argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof,” he [Behe] says…  http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/MasterPlanned.html

Date: 2009/10/30 17:57:34, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,15:26)
And now.....let's specifically see why ID is science.

Here before you is a scientific (and scientifically falsifiable) ID hypothesis.  

Have you read Gonzalez's and Richards' book The Privileged Planet? It's an excellent book, and the film version of it was even shown at the Smithsonian Institution.  

It presents one variety of the Intelligent Design hypothesis that's known as the cosmological or "fine-tuning" ID hypothesis.  The fact that our universe, our galaxy, our solar system, our planet, our EVERYTHING, is so very finely tuned in dozens of ways, leads to a rational inference that our universe (including solar system, planet Earth, etc) is the product of intelligent design.

And in their book, Gonzalez and Richards specifically write about how to Falsify their ID hypothesis.
 
Quote
The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.

The opposite of this would have the same effect—finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.

Less devastating but still relevant, would be discoveries that contradict individual parts of our argument. Most such discoveries would also show that the conditions for habitability of complex life are much wider and more diverse than we claim.

For instance, discovering intelligent life inside a gas giant with an opaque atmosphere, near an X-ray emitting star in the Galactic center, or on a planet without a dark night would do it serious damage.

Or take a less extreme example. We suggested in Chapter 1 that conditions that produce perfect solar eclipses also contribute to the habitability of a planetary environment.

Thus, if intelligent extraterrestrial beings exist, they probably enjoy good to perfect solar eclipses.
However, if we find complex, intelligent, indigenous life on a planet without a largish natural satellite, this plank in our argument would collapse.

Our argument presupposes that all complex life, at least in this universe, will almost certainly be based on carbon.

Find a non-carbon based life form, and one of our presuppositions collapses. It’s clear that a number of discoveries would either directly or indirectly contradict our argument.

Similarly, there are future discoveries that would count in favor of it. Virtually any discovery in astrobiology is likely to bear on our argument one way or the other. If we find still more strict conditions that are important for habitability, this will strengthen our case.

---pages 314-315

So now, we clearly have a scientifically falsifiable ID hypothesis.   It can be falsified via observation.  This ID hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis.

In an Evolution News And Views article, Jay Richards and Jonathan Witt quote the above snippet from the Privileged Planet book, as well as offering clarifying comments on what terms like "testable" and "falsification" mean:
 
Quote
"Empirical testability" is the genus, of which falsification and confirmation are species. Something is empirically testable when it is either falsifiable, confirmable, or both.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006....ca.html  


***

"Science is all about what is testable, not necessarily what is naturalistic."  (chemist Dr. John Millam.)  Now you have good warrant for the claim "ID is science."

Sorry, does not meet criteria number 2.  There is no difference between a universe created by ID for us and one that developed in such a way as to allow us to exist.

There a number of other ways in which such a universe could have come about.

1) This universe is entirely a simulation run on an universe sized computer close to the big crunch in another universe.
2) This universe is one of an infinite number... this is just the one that happens to have the correct physical values to allow for stars, planets, life, etc.

Please describe an experiment that would allow us to test for intelligent design vs any other possible cause of the existence of the life.

Of course, what you said is not a hypothesis.  So:

1) What is one hypothesis that ID proposes?
2) What is one prediction of ID that differs from evolutionary theory?  (In other words, what predictions made using ID would differ from predictions made from evolution.  PREDICTIONS, not statements like ‘life is designed’.)
3) Describe an experiment that could test this prediction (this test need not have been done yet).
4) What is one hypothesis of ID that has been tested and shown to be correct (this must have been tested)?
5) What is one piece of evidence that would falsify ID (in other words, what evidence proves ID to be incorrect)?
6) Dembski, Nelson, and Behe have both stated that ID as a scientific theory needs a lot of work and is not ready for the limelight.  How do you respond to that statement from three of the largest figures of ID theory?**
7)  Please describe a lab that my students could do that would show ID in action and be able to show that ID, as as a science works and is distinct from evolution.
8) Please provide a rigorous and testable definition of [/i]Information[/i] as it pertains to biology.

It was actually a good try, but you've got a minimum of 6 more to go and the one you used failed.

Remember, you want this taught as science YOU have to prove that it is.

Date: 2009/10/31 20:19:15, Link
Author: OgreMkV
If you really believe that you have given a direct answer to this question then you are too stupid to continue discussing this with.

Please, find the reference where you answered this question or repost it.  I mean, do you really think that 7 or 8 reasonably intelligent people (unlike yourself) missed it.

Further more, your posting/debating style is both inconsiderate and stupid.  You do not answer questions asked you in a timely manner, you continually bring up irrelevant comments, and your 'arguments' are at best pathetic and at worst outright lying.

I don't expect a pathetic little indoctrinated mind like yours to understand this: But you are not helping the cause of ID or Christianity. The other Christians here think you're an idiot.  You have no idea how to act as Christian.  You have no skills in debate.  You have no knowledge of either Christianity or science.

Please Floyd, as a favor to your position and your faith, please try to debate responsibly.  Try to use some logic.  Poor arguments just make you look, at best, and a worst, an outright liar.  

You really embarrassing yourself and your faith.

If you do actually read this, I really have little hope that you understand.  You see, unlike you, if I'm presented with an argument or even a request, I do my research and present my side using logic.  Your ranting and raving that you have 'defeated' all our arguments is just pathetic.

Please try to be a reasonable person.

Date: 2009/10/31 20:24:48, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,20:19)
Quote
Then surely you can address the fallacies I and others mentioned -- and the fact that you appear to be arguing for space-aliens now, Floaty

And surely you can answer MY question---have you read the book, Deadman?

The BOOK doesn't freaking matter you MORON!

It's the arguments contained within the book.  If the arguments in the book suck, then the fact that it's in a book DOESN'T MATTER.

Do you really believe that everything in print is instantly correct?  Cause, I have some books on witchcraft that would interest you.  I also have a BOOK that shows that the universe was created by the Titans... and one that tells me the Earth is resting on the back of a turtle.

I'll try this again.  Just because a book says so, doesn't make it true.

You can't be this dense.

Date: 2009/10/31 22:07:56, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Floyd, everything you have ever asked has been RESPONDED to.  The fact that you do not understand that response or do not like that response is not any concern of ours.  The fact of the matter is that it is responded to.

Again, I really wish you would make an effort to understand the arguments presented to you.  I have only met two other people that were so willfully ignorant as you. They were both 16.

Date: 2009/10/31 22:11:06, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 30 2009,17:57)
1) What is one hypothesis that ID proposes?
2) What is one prediction of ID that differs from evolutionary theory?  (In other words, what predictions made using ID would differ from predictions made from evolution.  PREDICTIONS, not statements like ‘life is designed’.)
3) Describe an experiment that could test this prediction (this test need not have been done yet).
4) What is one hypothesis of ID that has been tested and shown to be correct (this must have been tested)?
5) What is one piece of evidence that would falsify ID (in other words, what evidence proves ID to be incorrect)?
6) Dembski, Nelson, and Behe have both stated that ID as a scientific theory needs a lot of work and is not ready for the limelight.  How do you respond to that statement from three of the largest figures of ID theory?**
7)  Please describe a lab that my students could do that would show ID in action and be able to show that ID, as as a science works and is distinct from evolution.
8) Please provide a rigorous and testable definition of [/i]Information[/i] as it pertains to biology.

It was actually a good try, but you've got a minimum of 6 more to go and the one you used failed.

Remember, you want this taught as science YOU have to prove that it is.

We'll start here.

Date: 2009/10/31 22:11:53, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 30 2009,12:33)
Tell me Floyd, what IS "Computational Chemistry"?  How does it relate to Biology?

No answer

Date: 2009/10/31 22:14:31, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Jasper @ Oct. 29 2009,16:02)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 29 2009,16:48)
After all (ahemmm), I 'm not skeered to let readers know exactly what I believe and don't believe, even when it comes to core religious beliefs.

That's total BS, Floyd.

I've asked you multiple times about your beliefs concerning aspects of the Genesis account that you don't take literally (the Firmament, the moon "giving light", the pillars of the earth, etc.).

You reject a literal reading of Genesis when it comes to certain areas of science.

And yet, you demand that Genesis be interpreted literally when it comes to the question of whether evolution has occurred.

Why is that Floyd?

Another one...

Date: 2009/10/31 22:15:47, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 29 2009,14:19)
Since Floyd has become confused and unable to respond to requests for clarification on his points, I think it's best to provide a summary of what I believe his position to be.

Floyd believes that evolutionary theory and Christian doctrine are incompatible because:

1. Christian doctrine specifies that God is the necessary and sufficient explanation for biological organisms, and evolutionary theory does not require God as the necessary and sufficient explanation.

2. Christian doctrine specifies that God chose to create the universe and mankind and evolutionary theory denies that God chose to create the universe and mankind.

3. Christian doctrine specifies that God created man in His own image and evolutionary theory denies that God created man in His own image.

4. Christian doctrine specifies that death did not occur before man and evolutionary theory requires that death existed before man.

5. Christian doctrine specifies that God is a loving, and all-powerful God.  Evolutionary theory implies otherwise, since the evolutionary process involves gratuitous pain and suffering. This is Rosenhouse's point.

Now, once again, what definition of evolutionary theory did Floyd himself provide?

Quote
Evolution comes in two flavors, micro-evolution and macro-evolution.


Quote
Microevolution: Evolutionary change below the species level, change in the genetic makeup of a population from generation to generation.


Quote
Macroevolution: Evolutionary change above the species level, including the appearance of major evolutionary developments, such as flight, that we use to define higher taxa.


Quote
Macroevolution: Large evolutionary change, usually in morphology; typically refers to the evolution of differences among populations that would warrant their placement in different genera or higher-level taxa.


USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 1, we note that evolutionary theory is silent on the involvement of God in biological diversity and origins.  We also note that since Floyd has conceded that Genesis 1-11 need not be taken literally to be Christian, a Christian may accept any mechanism God chooses to use.  Study of God's own work - the World - shows us that evolution is the mechanism God chose to use to create and diversify life.

USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 2, we note that evolutionary theory is silent on the involvement of God in biological diversity and origins, and so does not deny that willed it and supports and maintains it.

USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 3, we note that evolutionary theory is silent on the involvement of God in biological diversity and origins.  Evolutionary theory says nothing about souls; certainly no one claims that evolution created the soul.

USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 4, we note that Christ is most likely referring to spiritual, rather than physical death, given the context of the passage.

USING FLOYD'S OWN SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS, with regard to point 5, we note that this has nothing to do with evolutionary theory per se - Rosenhouse is merely repeating the ancient Problem of Evil, for which Christianity already has an answer.

So Floyd, by conceding a non-literal reading of Genesis as compatible with Christian belief has conceded all points dependent on a Genesis history.

No incompatibilities, Floyd.  Not a single one.

Here's one refutation to all your incompatibilities... you have yet to comment on.

Date: 2009/10/31 22:19:40, Link
Author: OgreMkV
OK bored now... those were the last 10 pages and I hand picked the ones that hadn't been asked 50 times (like why is God required for water, but not required to make it flow downhill, etc.)

I could easily go further, but why?  Floyd will not answer them.

Date: 2009/10/31 22:31:34, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Hmmm... I agree that no one really understands your version of Christianity Floyd.  Fortunately, there are many other varieties of Christianity that actually make sense.

Date: 2009/10/31 22:36:05, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 31 2009,22:29)
Quote
He's conceded that evolution is not incompatible with Christianity.

No I have not.  I have already presented multiple personal testimonies that demonstrate the corrosive, eroding effects of the incompatibility of evolution with Christianity with in the lives of real people,
and also I have presented the Big Five Incompatibilities which you (among others) have not refuted.

Little too quick on the draw there Floyd buddy.  Look five posts above the one I quoted from you.

Perhaps 'have not refuted' doesn't mean what you think it means.

Date: 2009/10/31 23:04:29, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Keelyn @ Oct. 31 2009,23:01)
And it is exactly 00:00, November 1, 2009. “Debate” over! The consensus is after 87 pages – you lost Floyd. And the bet was, if you lost you wouldn’t post anywhere on PT for the next 25 years? Was that the bet? Someone say YES, please. Someone. Anyone?

Unfortunately, he doesn't think he lost.  And it doesn't mater if he lies, because he's doing it for his religion and anything is OK under that stipulation.

Crusades were the same thing.

Date: 2009/10/31 23:32:11, Link
Author: OgreMkV
You wrote an awful lot floyd and you still didn't answer the refutations.

You still have no idea what evolution really is do you?  You know what you want it to say so you can yell about it, but you really don't get it do you?

If you like, I can help you learn what evolution is really about, but only if you want to.

Date: 2009/11/01 06:51:18, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,01:20)
Quote
Floyd, you don't get to say who is and who isn't a Christian.

And YOU don't get to declare people to be Christians when they personally testify that in fact they are not Christians.  

The people I have quoted earlier, who wrote that they are no longer Christians, you have to take their personal testimonies just as seriously as if they had claimed to be Christians.  

Otherwise you are not listening to them and you are not really respecting them.

And, to be honest, if they say that evolution has played a part in their loss of Christian faith--and they did--you have to take that aspect seriously too.

This comment isn't about who ISN'T a Christian, but who you say IS a Christian.

Nice twist.

Yeah, I have to agree... Floyd's totally incomprehension just makes this a waste of time.  His refusal to learn anything (including his own religion) just means he can't understand the argument.  His inability to even see responses he doesn't agree with mean this whole thing is a waste.

I was really hoping for the ID part, but that seems to appear to be a sad, old argument that doesn't have anything to do with ID anyway.

Date: 2009/11/01 22:23:03, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Constant Mews @ Nov. 01 2009,22:08)
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 01 2009,01:29)
Quote
Christian doctrine does not require God to use any particular mechanism to create biodiversity.

Do you have access to a Bible?  You really need one in order to determine what "Christian doctrine" says.  Genesis and Hebrews are pretty specific, I'm afraid.

And here is the key to your problem.

Christine Doctrine is not Biblical literalism.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Christian doctrine couldn't have existed until near the end of the four gospels... there would have been no doctrine until there was a Christ.

Date: 2009/11/02 13:39:58, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Haven't we done this already?

I guess ID as science doesn't have a prayer.  I really wanted those questions answered too.  

Can we have more fun with Floyd then?

Hey Floyd, ever eat pork (including pork chops, bacon, canadian bacon, hot dogs, or pigs ears)?  That's literally forbidden in the bible...

Date: 2009/11/02 13:52:31, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Guys, Floyd lost, he doesn't understand that he can't take the bible literally and figuratively at the same time.  He doesn't understand that he can't quote-mine the bible (well, I guess he can, but it would be frowned upon if there is a Judeo-Christian afterlife).

How about answering the question Floyd?  Ever eat a pepperoni pizza?

Date: 2009/11/02 14:24:01, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,14:18)
Quote
he can't quote-mine the bible

Maybe you need to show me specifically where I quote-mined the Bible-----oh wait a minute, weren't you the one who was just complaining about not discussing ID?????

Guess you'll hafta make up your mind!

Here's the full Eph 6:5-9

5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

That's called quote-mining.  When you take a quote out of context and try to twist the words to mean what you want them to mean.

It's bad enough that you do so with science, but the bible?  What the heck kind of religion do you subscribe to?

By the way: Ever eaten pork ribs?

Now, please stop with the slavery.  Move on to ID... or is this the best you got?

Date: 2009/11/02 14:56:27, Link
Author: OgreMkV
"not threatening slaves" assumes one has slaves

please note (and do try to read the entire section) that this passage is how slaves are expected to behave.

Floyd, ever have a ham steak?

You're the one wasting time.  Fine, I won't bring it up again.  Let's get onto ID is science:

Questions for you Floyd:

1) What is one hypothesis that ID proposes?
2) What is one prediction of ID that differs from evolutionary theory?  (In other words, what predictions made using ID would differ from predictions made from evolution.  PREDICTIONS, not statements like ‘live is designed’.)
3) Describe an experiment that could test this prediction (this test need not have been done yet).
4) What is one hypothesis of ID that has been tested and shown to be correct (this must have been tested)?
5) What is one piece of evidence that would falsify ID (in other words, what evidence proves ID to be incorrect)?
6) Dembski, Nelson, and Behe have both stated that ID as a scientific theory needs a lot of work and is not ready for the limelight.  How do you respond to that statement from three of the largest figures of ID theory?**

Now, if you can’t or won’t answer questions 1-5, then ID is not science and must (by definition) be excluded from any science class.  If can’t answer them correctly, ditto.

Please keep in mind that YOU want to argue SCIENCE, so you must argue using science’s rules.  Changing the definition of science is not a valid response.  Keep in mind that it has been tried, but those changes to science also allow the teaching of astrology and witchcraft in science classes (I don’t think you want that do you?  I can teach Wiccan.).

As I’m sure you’re aware (since you think Texas has such a great science program), 40% of all class time for any science class in Texas public schools must be ‘laboratory’.  

7)  Please describe a lab that my students could do that would show ID in action and be able to show that ID works.

Finally, regardless of your ability to articulate a valid argument or not, there is at least one, non-scientific problem with ID in the classroom.  At the present time, it is illegal.  In Kitzmiller vs. Dover, Judge Jones, a federal judge, declared ID not to be science and including it in a classroom violated the establishment clause of the first amendment.  Basically, it’s not only that it’s not science, but ID promotes a SPECIFIC religion and that is not allowed in public schools.  You can’t teach Christianity in school any more than I can teach Wiccan in school.  


**At a 2002 conference on Intelligent Design, leading ID scholar William Dembski said: “Because of ID’s outstanding success at gaining a cultural hearing, the scientific research part of ID is now lagging behind.”  http://www.iscid.org/papers/Dembski_DisciplinedScience_102802.pdf

And

ID theoretician Paul Nelson wrote in Touchstone, a Christian magazine: “We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’ – but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.”
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/issue.php?id=76

And

“I quite agree that my argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof,” he [Behe] says…  http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/MasterPlanned.html

Date: 2009/11/02 15:10:15, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 02 2009,15:00)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 02 2009,13:39)
Haven't we done this already?

I guess ID as science doesn't have a prayer.  I really wanted those questions answered too.  

Can we have more fun with Floyd then?

Hey Floyd, ever eat pork (including pork chops, bacon, canadian bacon, hot dogs, or pigs ears)?  That's literally forbidden in the bible...

Actually it is not illegal to eat pork, in the sense that it applies to any Christian. As an example of the mistake you are making, sacrificing animals for sin atonement is commanded in the OT but it would be an abomination and the mother-of-all blasphemes in the NT. You have to remember that the seminal event in Christian history, the incarnation, substitutional death and resurrection of Christ, means there was a phase shift between the OT and the NT. Why people think that there was not a radical difference from before Christ arrived and after he achieved redemption is--to say the least--puzzling.

Not to mention that, in this case, the NT literally states that all food is lawful.

And, not that I am especially happy about agreeing with FL, and not that I even know that I am because I will not be bothered to go back and read the previous posts, but just for a point of argument, the New Testament does not, at all, condone slavery.

I think the point is that if the bible is to be read literally, then there are significant problems with things that are OK in one context and not OK in another context.

If Floyd wants Genesis to be read as literal, then the entire OT must also be read as literal... which does include proscription against pork and taking of slaves.

He can't just pick and choose which part is to be taken literal and which part is not to be taken literal.  Unless, he exlains in great detail, what allows one part to be taken literally and the other part not to and how to tell the difference when it not explicitlly mentioned elsewhere in the bible.

But, that's a digression.  I agree.


Questions for you Floyd:

1) What is one hypothesis that ID proposes?
2) What is one prediction of ID that differs from evolutionary theory?  (In other words, what predictions made using ID would differ from predictions made from evolution.  PREDICTIONS, not statements like ‘live is designed’.)
3) Describe an experiment that could test this prediction (this test need not have been done yet).
4) What is one hypothesis of ID that has been tested and shown to be correct (this must have been tested)?
5) What is one piece of evidence that would falsify ID (in other words, what evidence proves ID to be incorrect)?
6) Dembski, Nelson, and Behe have both stated that ID as a scientific theory needs a lot of work and is not ready for the limelight.  How do you respond to that statement from three of the largest figures of ID theory?**

Now, if you can’t or won’t answer questions 1-5, then ID is not science and must (by definition) be excluded from any science class.  If can’t answer them correctly, ditto.

Please keep in mind that YOU want to argue SCIENCE, so you must argue using science’s rules.  Changing the definition of science is not a valid response.  Keep in mind that it has been tried, but those changes to science also allow the teaching of astrology and witchcraft in science classes (I don’t think you want that do you?  I can teach Wiccan.).

As I’m sure you’re aware (since you think Texas has such a great science program), 40% of all class time for any science class in Texas public schools must be ‘laboratory’.  

7)  Please describe a lab that my students could do that would show ID in action and be able to show that ID works.

Finally, regardless of your ability to articulate a valid argument or not, there is at least one, non-scientific problem with ID in the classroom.  At the present time, it is illegal.  In Kitzmiller vs. Dover, Judge Jones, a federal judge, declared ID not to be science and including it in a classroom violated the establishment clause of the first amendment.  Basically, it’s not only that it’s not science, but ID promotes a SPECIFIC religion and that is not allowed in public schools.  You can’t teach Christianity in school any more than I can teach Wiccan in school.  


**At a 2002 conference on Intelligent Design, leading ID scholar William Dembski said: “Because of ID’s outstanding success at gaining a cultural hearing, the scientific research part of ID is now lagging behind.”  http://www.iscid.org/papers/Dembski_DisciplinedScience_102802.pdf

And

ID theoretician Paul Nelson wrote in Touchstone, a Christian magazine: “We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’ – but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.”
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/issue.php?id=76

And

“I quite agree that my argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof,” he [Behe] says…  http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/MasterPlanned.html

Date: 2009/11/02 15:33:22, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 02 2009,15:23)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 02 2009,13:10)
He can't just pick and choose which part is to be taken literal and which part is not to be taken literal.  Unless, he exlains in great detail, what allows one part to be taken literally and the other part not to and how to tell the difference when it not explicitlly mentioned elsewhere in the bible.

Actually, he can do this - it's what most Christians do, albeit less crudely than "pick and choose" implies.  

Of course, loss of the "I'm more literal than you" card would cause problems for his whole argument.  Most Christians accept that, if the bible says one thing and reality says another, a literal interpretation of the bible would be silly.  There aren't many Christians who think the Earth has four corners and rests on pillars.

Hmmm... I agree with this.  And some Christians will take the parts that they want about God's love and leave the rest or whatever it is they want to say.  (I could go on about which parts get left for a bit...)

Anyway, I also agree with you that in FLoyd's situation, he's made the case that you can't pick and choose which parts of the Bible are literal.  He's stated that all of it is...

Which (BTW Floyd) is why ID is not science and not allowed in my classroom.  Because it promotes a specific religion over other religions violating the establishment clause of the US Constitution.

Date: 2009/11/02 16:31:57, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Please describe, in detail, what observations in this universe can be made that differentiate between design and evolution.

Date: 2009/11/02 17:49:20, Link
Author: OgreMkV
BTW: I love how mealy mouthed that justification is.  "In context" that's rich coming from you.  

There is one other alternative.  The whole thing is non-literal, which is where I and I think most everyone else is.  Personally, I'd submit that the whole thing is out of context for today.

You've already admitted you don't have to read the entire Bible as literal to be a Christian, therefore everything you've argued for over the last 90 odd pages is moot.

Enough.  I think we've all seen enough.

Now, You have to defend ID as science.  Go!

Date: 2009/11/03 09:46:05, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Floyd, this would be a fascinating discussion... except that it's very off topic.

I've given you 7 questions (plus another one suggested by someone else) to help you in your defense that ID is science.

That was at least 3 days ago (Friday if I recall correctly).  So far you have presented one 'theoretical' claim, that unfortunately cannot be differentiated from what mainstream science presents (that would be the 9th question).

Why don't we just go there?  If you choose to not go there, why not (10th question)?

Date: 2009/11/03 10:25:55, Link
Author: OgreMkV
As has already been established... it is not falsifiable because there is no difference between

A) the universe that we live in is was designed specifically for us
B) the universe that we live in is a giant simulation to determine if live could evolve in a universe like ours
C) the only (or one of a few) of an infinite number of universes

Please explain, in detail, the difference that would be used to judge between these possible scenarios.  Then describe the experiment that would be used to test that hypothesis.

You're right, the scientific method works.

Date: 2009/11/03 10:27:56, Link
Author: OgreMkV
sorry

'C' should be "C) the only (or one of a few) universes out of an infinite number in which life like ours evolved"

Date: 2009/11/03 10:35:59, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 31 2009,01:18)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 30 2009,13:26)
And in their book, Gonzalez and Richards specifically write about how to Falsify their ID hypothesis.
 
Quote
The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.

In addition to the many other objections raised, this core "decisive way" to test the Privileged Planet hypothesis is not a scientific test at all, and merely provides a foundation for future waffling.  

To make this a meaningful test, we first need to count the number of diverse scientific discoveries it's possible to make in our local environment.  Actually, cancel that.  What's a "diverse scientific discovery"?  (Special and general relativity: one diverse scientific discovery, or two?)  What's the "local environment"?  (Earth?  Inner Solar System?  Arms of a spiral galaxy?)

OK, so we need to define our terms.
Then we need to count our discoveries.  
Then we need a methodology for determining how many discoveries are possible in other environments - which are hostile to life, so we can't just ask the locals.

Sounds straightforward to me.  Let's see your data, Floyd.

here's some more questions that need to be answered before we can even begin...

Don't forget to define 'superior platform' as well.  

Actually, on further reflection... the whole argument is stupid.  "Quite hostile to life" means that there would be no life, therefore how can a scientific discovery be made.  If there was life, the environment wouldn't be hostile.

Therefore that part can never be met.

Try again.

Date: 2009/11/03 18:21:09, Link
Author: OgreMkV
He also hasn't answered...

As has already been established... it is not falsifiable because there is no difference between

A) the universe that we live in is was designed specifically for us
B) the universe that we live in is a giant simulation to determine if live could evolve in a universe like ours
C) the only (or one of a few) of an infinite number of universes

Please explain, in detail, the difference that would be used to judge between these possible scenarios.  Then describe the experiment that would be used to test that hypothesis.

You're right, the scientific method works.

and


here's some more questions that need to be answered before we can even begin...

Don't forget to define 'superior platform' as well.  

Actually, on further reflection... the whole argument is stupid.  "Quite hostile to life" means that there would be no life, therefore how can a scientific discovery be made.  If there was life, the environment wouldn't be hostile.

Therefore that part can never be met.



Of course, FLoyd doesn't have any original ideas and can only parrot those that stole them from someone in the 1800s when this idea originated.

Date: 2009/11/04 08:11:39, Link
Author: OgreMkV
OK FLoyd.  I'll bite...

please tell me, in detail, what evidence would falsify ID.  No wait, that's a stupid question because there is no ID hypothesis.  The only thing that would falsify it is some outragous statement like, 'if we didn't exist'.

You bring up Dembski.  How do you answer HIS charge that ID is not really science?  How about Behe's statement that ID doesn't have a research program (you'd think he's be leading it, but no).

Why is that your book 'Privileged Planet' is the font of all scientific knowledge and thousands of books that say something else are not... oh wait, they don't say 'godidit'.  So nevermind.

Floyd, have you read the transcripts of the Dover/Kitzmiller case?  It is quite obvious to anyone who is not seeped in fundamentalism that ID is based on Judeochristian mythology.

Would you like me teaching Wiccan in public schools?

BTW: You haven't answered the question "What is the difference between the 'priviliged planet' 'hypothesis' and the same result from any of previously listed scenarios.  i.e. what can we test to find out which is correct?

Date: 2009/11/04 10:58:45, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Floyd, you're forgetting that if we weren't so 'well placed' then we wouldn't have the observations that let us assume we are well placed.

The assumption here is that human life is the end-all-be-all of the universe.  It's an unwritten assumption, but it is there never-the-less.

Again, what information would falsify this statement?
What experiment could be done to differentiate this statement from any of the four or so that have been presented as equivalent?

That's why it's not science.

Date: 2009/11/04 11:04:15, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (rossum @ Nov. 04 2009,10:55)
The universe is better tuned for rocks than it is for us.  The greatest part of the universe is interstellar and intergalactic space which in extremely inhospitable for us but hospitable for rocks.  Rocks can survive in the cold and anoxic conditions that occupy 99.99% of the universe, while we cannot.

We are merely an an unintended consequence of a universe designed to be hospitable for rocks.

rossum

I'd make the arguement that the universe is expressly designed for hydrogen.  There is more of that in more places than any other atom.  

Of course, we could also make the point that the universe is expressly designed for gravity... if humans can ever create/control gravity, then the arguement could be made that we are just are part of the grand plan to promote gravity.

See, we can make up stuff all day too.  And none of it science, even though it's said by a sciencist (more or less).

Date: 2009/11/04 12:06:18, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,11:30)
Quote
We are merely an an unintended consequence of a universe designed to be hospitable for rocks.

Goodness, what a dreary bummer hypothesis!!  Why not sign up with Gonzalez and Richards instead???

Because reality is not determined by how depressing the alternates are.

I think that this is what you and all the other people who want to change science (and history in Texas) are missing and why this arguement can never be resolved.  

Do you really think that getting a court to order the teaching of Intelligent Design makes it a viable scientific enterprise?  

If so, then why didn't the courts nullify gravity in the late 50s to make space travel easier?

Reality sucks dude.  You can live in whatever fantasy world you like, but the real world is still there waiting to impinge on your perfect existence.  You can hold to whatever beliefs make you, personally, feel better about your existance.  However, no matter what you declare, the universe is still a harsh place with rules that science and engineers follow.  

Let's say that you somehow managed to get evolution 'declared' illegal.  Will that make all the antibiotic research automatically invalid?  Will super bacteria cease to exist?  Of course not and only a fool would think so.  When your doctor proscribes anti-biotics, do you take everyone of them like he says to?  Of course you do, because, in the end, you to knows that evolution, as a science, works.

Scientists, engineers, forensic scientists, doctors, even lawyers use tools that work.  If the tool doesn't do anything, then it's useless.

ID does NOTHING.  Go ahead, prove me wrong.  Name one scientific advancement in the last, oh, 50,000 years that can be attributed to research in intelligent design.

We can discuss specified complexity and panspermia and the suitibleness of the universe for rocks, but in the end ID provides no tools to advance science.  None.  Evolution does provide those tools.  Evolution tells us (in advance) what things we can expect to see when we look at the fossil record, and the changes in bacteria when exposed to antibiotics, and the effectiveness of HIV drugs, and a million other things that are neccesary for you to sit at your computer and blather on about how wrong it is.  

That is why, ID is doomed to fail.

So, tell us Floyd, tell us the tools that ID provides.  Tell us more than Dembski and Behe and Morris and Austin have ever done.  Tell us that... or go away in defeat, because in this case, there are only two options.  Prove ID is science or lose.

We're waiting.

Date: 2009/11/04 13:28:03, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I disagree with most of this Heddle.  Because there are alternatives for all of the above.

IR is heat, so a lot of that energy gets through the atmosphere.  Some UV definitely gets through otherwise, I wouldn't need SPF 4000.  

There's no inherent (i.e. biochemical) reason that I can think of for organisms not to be able to detect radio or even microwaves.  The atmosphere is transparent to all of these.

In fact, evolution predicts that organisms should evolve sensors for visible light because of the utiltity advantage of visible light.  However, bees do see UV and not red light.

But would we be here if not for the sun's specific spectrum.  We probably wouldn't be, but that doesn't automatically exclude any intelligent for of life evolving in our stead.  Squid and Octopi are very intelligent, excellent problem solvers, equally dexterous when compared to humans, have better vision than we do, and even communicate in colors.  

Then we have to consider the huge mass of life that has never seen the sun and do not depend on the sun for photosynthesis.  Consider the food web of a black smoker with chemosynthetic bacteria as a replacement for plants.

We also need to consider those organisms that use sound as a primary sensory system rather than any form of EM radiation.  And those that use scent as a primary sensory system.

Again, we could, of course, be in a cleverly designed simulation run on a universe sized quantum computer.  However, there is no way for us to tell the difference between these competing hypotheses (multi-verse, bubble universe, simulation, intelligent design).  There is some discussion (from legitimate scientists) that all of these hypotheses are not science because we (currently) have no way to tell.  

In my opinion, some areas of 'non-science' like M-theory are rapidlly getting to the point where they will become 'real science' with testable differences and falsifiability.  If we say, "Oh, design", then what do we say when we actually discover the science... or do we just not do the science?

Date: 2009/11/04 19:44:16, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I would like to point out that humanity is a 'ahppy accident' at least from our perspective.  If not for a rather large chunk of space debris, we might be descendants of velociraptors having this conversation.

If the universe is designed for a 'higher life form', then surely it was designed for dinosaurs that went an unprecedented 60+ million years.

No, they were not 'intelligent' (we think)... at least they weren't obviously tool users, but then neither are dolphins.

Personally I agree with those that count a well-designed universe as merely humanity projecting its own desires into the universe.

I still say that there it is not science, because there is no way to determine the difference between the results of design vs. luck in our universe.  

If you can think of a way to test it, I'll be happy to help.

Date: 2009/11/05 09:40:37, Link
Author: OgreMkV
hey floyd,  I'm glad your back.  I'm hoping we can move away from the 'privileged planet' thing because it really isn't science either.

How about providing us with a tool, based on ID, that can be used to predict the changes in bacteria over 40,000 generations when exposed to various environmental issues or toxins and when limited in food choices?

Date: 2009/11/05 09:41:26, Link
Author: OgreMkV
hey floyd,  I'm glad your back.  I'm hoping we can move away from the 'privileged planet' thing because it really isn't science either.

How about providing us with a tool, based on ID, that can be used to predict how organisms respond at the genetic level to changes in their environment?

Date: 2009/11/05 10:04:41, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Answer this question floyd:

What is the expected and testable difference between a universe that is specifically designed for us and one that is not?

If you or anyone else cannot answer that question, then it isn't science and we can move on.

There is no ability to falsify the statements given in this book until several points are defined to a high degree of precision (which, I note, you and the authors fail to do).  Such things as (Thanks JohnW):

What's a "diverse scientific discovery"?  (Special and general relativity: one diverse scientific discovery, or two?)  

What's the "local environment"?  (Earth?  Inner Solar System?  Arms of a spiral galaxy?)

define 'superior platform'.

Explain the fact that "quite hostile to life" means that there would be no life, how can a scientific discovery be made.  If there was life, the environment wouldn't be hostile.

You see, scientists can't just throw words about (though we are all guilty of doing so) without having very precise meanings assigned to each word or phrase.  So, define and answer the above... then we can start thinking about whether it's even testable or not.  But before we do all of that... it's not a question that science can answer, therefore, not science.

What's a tool that ID provides to predict the reaction of HIV to a particular treatment program.

Date: 2009/11/05 11:16:43, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,10:30)
But it's still a scientific, falsifiable-by-observation hypothesis.

What is the testable difference between a universe specifically designed for us and a universe that is not?

Can't answer... or won't?

Date: 2009/11/05 11:33:20, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Again Floyd:

What's a "diverse scientific discovery"?  (Special and general relativity: one diverse scientific discovery, or two?)  

What's the "local environment"?  (Earth?  Inner Solar System?  Arms of a spiral galaxy?)

define 'superior platform'.

Explain the fact that "quite hostile to life" means that there would be no life, how can a scientific discovery be made.  If there was life, the environment wouldn't be hostile.

Finding another life form that has or does x isn't testable.  We would literally have to explore everything in the entire universe to verify or falsify this statement.  It's not possible.

So, what is a testable difference between a universe that is specifically designed for us and any other universe?

Date: 2009/11/05 11:37:35, Link
Author: OgreMkV
You've had three people tell you the same thing in just a few minutes.

Can we move on or is this it?

Date: 2009/11/05 12:17:17, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (dheddle @ Nov. 05 2009,12:03)
Again I have to disagree. In our own solar system there are ~8.5 planets and ~175 moons. And it looks like only earth supports complex life. And I don't think any of us would be surprised if it is the only orb in our solar system with any life. So the question is not really whether earth is privileged, our own solar system sets the upper level of its privileged character at ~ one in a hundred.  The question is only one of degree.

And I also disagree that none of Gonzalez's arguments are valid. I see nothing scientifically invalid, for example, in his idea of a galactic habitability zone.That is independent of whether it turns out to be correct. As a scientific concept it it is valid in the sense that it merits consideration. Whether it stands the test of time--who knows.

I disagree heddle.  I would be very surprised if Earth is the only body with any form of life in our solar system.  Ganymede, Europa, and Titan all look pretty good for some form of life.  Heck, comets have complex organic molecules on them.

Again, and this is the big problem (as a testable science) with the arguements as presented, we have to visit every rock (and indeed gas giant and for that matter star) and determine if life is present or not.  And, while we do that, we may have to radically change our definition of life.

I can agree... up to a point about a 'galactic habitability zone' if you include 'for humans'.  I know I wouldn't want to live a few parsecs down from the black hole(s?) in the center of the galaxy... but that's not to say that some form of life wouldn't find it very pleasant.  

Again, it's not science because it's not testable.  At best, it's logical philosophy.  Ask me again in 65,000 years or so and I may have a different answer because science may have caught up with philosophy as has happened any number of times.

Date: 2009/11/05 12:55:35, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 05 2009,12:43)
Just curious, Ogre.  Do you have any evidence that any universe exists other than the one we see now?

And have you read the book "The Privileged Planet"?

Do you have any evidence that this universe is the only universe?

Of course you don't and of course I don't... WHICH IS THE POINT!

It's not testable.

Now, you say that the principle that our universe (and by implication our planet, and us) are specifically designed.

What test can we do that will provide information (and what is that information) whether you or I are correct?  That is science... see the difference?

Date: 2009/11/05 13:31:52, Link
Author: OgreMkV
From the "privileged planet" website

Q #1: Is the fact that we can see "perfect" solar eclipses related to our existence?
A: The Earth's surface provides the best view of solar eclipses in the Solar System. The Earth's surface is also the most habitable place in the Solar System. Is this coincidence just that? In The Privileged Planet, we argue that it isn't. The conditions that make a planet habitable also make its inhabitants more likely to see solar eclipses.

The authors mistake cause and effect.  The causes of a solar ecplise somehow cause life.  At this point, this isn't testable because we don't have anything to compare our planet to.  I would however, be perfectly willing to argue that the moon of a gas giant would be even more 'safe' for any potential inhabitants than our planet.


Q #2: Is our existence related to the transparency of the atmosphere?
A: Atmospheres come in many forms, but not all allow for complex life or clear views of the wider universe. Complex life requires a certain type of atmosphere. It turns that this same type of atmosphere provides a remarkably clear view of the near and distant universe. Complex, intelligent beings are unlikely to find themselves on a planet with an opaque atmosphere or deep in a murky ocean. We explain this relationship in detail in The Privileged Planet.

Again, mistakes cause and effect.  Complex organisms surely appeared in the oceans before land.  Octopi are known as far back as 95 million years.

I would also point out that the atmosphere of the primevil Earth was pretty hostile and life changed that atmosphere.

Q #3: Can life be based on any liquid substance, or is water somehow special?
A: Water is common on Earth's surface, but one might suspect that on other planets, there are complex, intelligent beings that are not based on water, but liquid ammonia, methane, or nitrogen. But that's very unlikely. As it turns out, water is endowed with life-support capacities lacking in other substances. Together these capacities make water the most anomalous compound known to science. In The Privileged Planet, we also explain how important water has been to the rise of science.

"water is endowed with life support capacities"?  "Water is the most anomalous compound known to science"?  Why is life based on other solvents so unlikely?  Talk about an anthropomorphic view.

Q #4: Is Earth a data recorder?
A: A walk through a Redwood forest is like a walk through the Library of Congress. Trees, along with corals, polar ice, marine sediments, and lake sediments contain vast storehouses of detailed information about Earth's past climate. Is this a typical feature of planets? On the contrary, we argue in that, as planets go, Earth (or, more precisely, the Earth-Moon system) is a quite high fidelity recorder of the past.

Now, we're just getting silly.  I'm guessing that they had to add the 'Earth-Moon system' because of the huge array of historical information we can get from the moon.  Of course, Mars will have to be added because of all the info (including paleo) we get from there.  Then any planet/moon/dwarf planet with craters.  

Q #5: Is the appearance of the night sky related to our existence?
A: Not only is our atmosphere transparent, but we also enjoy dark nights. Several happy coincidences, from having a planet that rotates on its axis, to our location in the galaxy, to the age of the cosmos, conspire to make this possible. And those dark nights have been vital to many scientific discoveries, as we argue in The Privileged Planet.

So no other planets rotate on an axis?  What would be the difference if our solar system existed anywhere else?  

Q #6: Why are there so many planets in the Solar System?
A: Isn't just one planet (Earth) all we need? Doesn't it seem like a waste of space and materials to have all those other barren worlds? Well, not if those worlds are players in the games of life and scientific discovery. In The Privileged Planet, we discuss how the other planets serve as Earth's protectors while at the same time helping us in our quest to learn about the nature of the cosmos.

Again, this is just silly.  The planets in our solar system exist to protect us and teach us.  So You want to go back to worshipping Jupiter?

Q #7: Did Copernicus remove us from the center of the cosmos?
A: In most introductory astronomy textbooks and popular descriptions of the history of science, students are told that until Copernicus, the West believed that Earth and its human inhabitants viewed themselves as being in the most important place in the cosmos. Copernicus, we are told, demoted us by making Earth merely one of the planets. As it is usually presented, this popular story is mostly mythology rather than historical fact. In Pre-Copernican cosmology, the "center" of the cosmos meant something entirely different from what it is now taken to mean. We explain why in The Privileged Planet

When all else fails, change the rules of the game.  

Sigh.  I haven't read the book and I'm not going to waste processing power and memory space on it.

Again, please describe the difference between a universe specifically designed for us and one that is not.  I'll help, fill in the blanks:

If the universe is designed, then we should see ___.

While you're doing that, provide me with an ID based tool that is better than evolution at predicting results of experiments.

Date: 2009/11/05 13:47:51, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I don't care about the book.  Have you actually thought about this or are you just parroting something that you think supports ID?

define 'superior observational platform'
define a method to count observations
explain the paradox that if a place is hostile to life, then it has no life and therefore no observations can be made.  Alternately, if there is life, then the environment is not hostile to life.

Give me a piece of information that we would expect to see in a designed universe and why that piece is different from any other possible universe.

Oh, and how about describing an ID based tool that I can use to predict the phenotypes of my cat's kittens.

Here's one, why won't you answer the above questions?  They are necessary for the SCIENCE part of your explanation.

Date: 2009/11/05 14:54:25, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 05 2009,14:44)
As I understand it, 3-4 billion years ago the moon was much closer to Earth than it is now. But that was presumably before there was anybody on the planet to care that the corona was visible only momentarily at the start and again at the end of the eclipse.

Also, the moon is still moving away, so in several million years there won't be total eclipses at all (the moon will at that point only blot out a circular piece of the sun). Will that cause Earth to become uninhabitable?

Henry

True, I always forget about that.  I never can remember anything past about 65 million years ago.

Another point, the moon is not in a perfectly circular orbit around the Earth.  The moon wobbles a bit up and down each cycle.  So, if things were designed so perfectly, one would think that perfect ecplises should happen frequently, so as to allow the most 'teaching' to occur.

Floyd, do you really want to understand this stuff or do you just want to preach?

Date: 2009/11/05 15:34:45, Link
Author: OgreMkV
heddle is using the same arguements that he used in 2004 at Panda's Thumb.  I killed the link, but search in the archive for 'Priviliged Planet'.

You'd think in 5 years, someone would come up with a testable experiment to differentiate between a specifically designed universe and one that is not specifically designed.  

I also would like to point out that the first slide of Kuehn's powerpoint crituquing the book discusses how Christians should witness and bring up ID.  Then he trashes the book too.  

LOL

Date: 2009/11/05 21:34:14, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Heddle, thank you.  You have at least understood that the whole argument is not science.  

I still disagree because I still think you're confusing cause and effect and correlation.  

Let's try this example:  I'm playing 5 card draw with a bunch of 19 year old cheerleaders (for obvious antes).  I pick up my hand and I've got Ah, Ad, As, Ac, Kd.  What are the odds that I drew that hand?  

The odds of being dealt any four of a kind is 0.0015%.  4 aces would be 1/13 of that.  So the odds that I drew that hand are 0.00012 (roughly), right?

Wrong.  The odds that I drew that hand are 100%, because I did.  

The 'specialness' of that hand is only because it has meaning for me and the lovelies I'm playing cards with.  The rareness of the hand is the same as getting 6h, 3d, 7s, Jc, 2h.  That hand just isn't special so we don't care.

Same thing with the universe.  The only reason that this one is 'special' is because we are in it to look for meaning.  Any special properties that we assign to this universe are completely independent of the universe itself.  

Personally speaking, I feel sorry for the universe (and the designer) if we are the end result of the design.  The poor alien/godling/programmer probably failed its design class.

Date: 2009/11/05 22:06:09, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,21:58)
Yes. Dinos and man lived at the same time. In fact all dino fossils ever found were from the biblical flood actions within one year.
I don't believe people lived with dinos as the bible says only after the flood was there a need for special protection from animals. So the fear of man put in creatures. Today still all creatures have a fear of man that they don'y have for other animals regardless of size.
Perhaps the numbers of people before the flood kept creatures away but i think there was a important segregation in living areas.

Bull cookies.  Here's a nice article on the tigers of Sundarbans.  They kill an average of 50 men a year... why, because the men are easy prey.  Seems like the tigers aren't too good at staying in the areas where they are protected.

http://bigcatnews.blogspot.com/2009....ns.html

The rest of it isn't worth the energy it would take to type it up.

BTW: You can believe whatever you want, I don't care.  However, do not think you can get that crap into my school.

Date: 2009/11/05 22:31:08, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I dare you to find me one published paper in any Geology journal that does not support moving continents.

And, for Hera's sake, work on the grammar.

Date: 2009/11/05 22:39:14, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,22:31)
Unrelated to the criticisms made by evolution etc against the accuracy of the bible. Its your side saying you have evidence of this or that that shows the bible wrong. Thats all we take on. We just are forced to give answers to explain things but really we are just in defense and not trying to prove the bible. it just works out that way.

Now you're confusing evolution with atheism.  

Atheists don't believe in god and think that the Bible is a poorly edited book of myths that has little to no relevance in the modern world and has created a variety of religions that are responsible for most of the wars and human caused catastrophes throughout the last 2000 years.

Evolution says that the allele frequency of populations of organisms changes over time.

Get it?

Date: 2009/11/05 22:46:58, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 05 2009,22:37)
If big cats killed without fear then the number in history would of been tremendous and cats would of been exterminated. In reality big cats run from people save on a few occasions where need forces them to strike despite fear. Alwaus in nature shows and readings i find that those close to nature insist big creatures are afraid of people and one can protect oneself by merely making noise.

Fantastic.  I'll take you with me to India when we go.

Date: 2009/11/06 12:21:15, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I still remember taking my brand new $400 48SX to a science club meet.  I had the science chip with the built in periodic table and physics equations that included the magnetic moment around a torroidal solenoid (or something like that, I never got to that in Physics).

I've batteries twice since I got it in 1989 and I still use to this day.

I love that machine.

Date: 2009/11/06 13:57:09, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Reg @ Nov. 06 2009,11:55)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 06 2009,11:49)
I'm waiting with bated breath for the day when someone, anyone (Bueller?) over there actually provides some data about the moral behavior of the religious vs. the non-religious.  If it's so freaking obvious that belief in goofy superstition is the basis of morality, you'd think it would be pretty easy to back up with evidence.

Haven't you heard? "Hitler was an atheist darwinist, and so was Stalin, and atheism made Klebold and Harris shoot their classmates at Columbine, and materialists see no reason not to sample the choice flesh of 13 year old girls, QED."

In a survey, most Catholic Priests prefer 13 year-old boys.

I had a very tasteless and crude joke to put in next, but it was really, really inappropriate (no matter how true it might be).

Date: 2009/11/06 19:32:31, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I do know a couple of creationist geologists.  And it does seem that engineering attracts more creationists than the sciences.

Date: 2009/11/07 09:51:30, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Robert,  Let's establish something here.  There is no 'contention' on the fact of evolution (or geology) for that matter.  There may be some intense discussion on how much a role selection vs. mutation plays in various populations, but that's not what you mean.

Tell you what, call the Biology department at your local university and ask each Biologist there what their views on the fact of evolution is.  That ought to give you pretty good sample.

It also seems that you really don't understand a lot about what you're talking about so I'd like you to define a few things for us.  So we can all be on the same page.

Evolution

Natural Selection

A hypothesis of Intelligent Design

While you're at it, what's your definition of 'hypothesis'?

So answer those and I would be very appreciative.

Date: 2009/11/08 21:31:39, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Not sure where else to put this.  This is a link to a debate on "Is the Catholic Church a Force for Good in the World?"  Broadcast on the BBC.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F821DBF3CE3374A3

Funny, funny stuff.  

Spoiler Alert...








Catholicism got its collective butt kicked.

Date: 2009/11/10 12:45:04, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I can barely read Robert's stuff.  At least Floyd was articulate.

Date: 2009/11/10 13:45:13, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 10 2009,05:26)
I didn't know you wanted my age. its 44.
Today creationism is exploding in popularity and fame in many  types.
YEC can confidently teach and persuade audiences to question and reject claims of solid evidence behind the great claims of evolution.
In fact its just finding your audiences that is the frustration.
Thats why government institutions must become a target for equality in the discussions on origins.

1) reality TV is also exploding in popularity and fame.  It's still trash.

2) Please give me one tool that is based on YEC that can be used to predict the effect of antibiotics on bacteria.

3) We don't have an audience.  Evolution does not 'pander to the masses'.  It's called science.  It doesn't care what you think about it.  It's science.  It simply is.

4) No, the reason government institutions must become your target is because they are the only ones who are willing to believe you.  Scientists refuse to listen to your arguments because you have none.

Now, I asked a bunch of questions earlier which you ignored.  Please answer the one above.

What is one tool, based on YEC, that can accurately predict the outcome of anything?

Date: 2009/11/11 08:16:10, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 11 2009,02:59)
The bible predicts a great deal and is always right.
Genesis is right and so any conclusions about the natural world can be predicted to fit within the boundaries of genesis.

So you believe that bats are birds, spiders are insects,  and that the value of Pi is exactly 3.

Got it.  You're nuts.

Yes, you can 'assert' anything you want.  However, your credibility [sic] will be enhanced by citing sources that support your claims.

Fell free to 'assert' that Pi = 3.  But, please don't build a bridge using it.

Date: 2009/11/11 08:17:59, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 11 2009,03:13)
It is a well-known result in neurology that certain forms of frontal lobe damage lead to perseverative behavior patterns.

So? Lobotomy?

Date: 2009/11/12 08:46:49, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Hey bobb,

In the other thread you said that the bible was the only tool creationism has and needed.

Please show me how we can predict the antibiotic resitance of bacteria using the bible.  Please show me how we can use the bible to show the advantages of sickle cell anemia.

Do you believe that the Bible is only 'against' biology or does it also include other sciences?

Do you realize that most of modern society couldn't exist without evolutionary theory?  From the wheat that makes your bread to the milk in your chocolate shake... it all depends on evolutionary theory.

Date: 2009/11/12 14:04:15, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Is this a turing test?

Date: 2009/11/13 22:35:30, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Let me see if I understand.  This guy is a 'project manager' for a Canadian government department.  Maybe he normally speaks French?

I tell you what though.  Regardless of the language... he has the dumb.

Date: 2009/11/15 20:33:38, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I wonder if my sugar gliders (marsupials) breed here in the US, will the offspring not be marsupial?

Date: 2009/11/18 09:43:48, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Rob, do you really not understand that evolutionary theory is not based only in taxonomy?  Your marsupial example really describes this perfectly.

You base your observations on some photos you got off the internet (I'm assuming you've never ventured 'into the guts' of a kangaroo).

Real scientists are basing the claims they have made on
A) anatomy and physiology - not just the fur color and shape of the ears, but the location and size of holes in the skull, the shape and number of teeth, the shape and number of verterbrae, etc.
B) paleontology - i.e. the history of the organism.  What were it's closest fossil relatives, what were their closest fossil relatives, etc. until you get to the most recent common ancestor with another group (say opossums vs. possums)
C) Biochemical relatedness - how do the DNA, Mitochondrial DNA, proteins (especially cytochrome c), and the like match or not match between species, genus, families, etc
D) Geographical relatedness - i.e. is there a difference between the opossum and the possum?  What is it and why?

That is how we determine the relationships between organisms.  Linnaeus had a good idea, but his taxonomy has (IMO) harmed the study of relatedness between organisms.  For example, would Linnaeus have guessed that hippos are the closest living relative to whales?  Doubt it.  Instead, we found genetic evidence, then paleotological evidence, and therefore concluded that whales and hippos are very closely related.

Just a single train of evidence is OK, but multiple lines of evidence is much better and that is what we have with evolutionary theory.

Date: 2009/11/18 10:16:40, Link
Author: OgreMkV
This was mentioned on PT, but I'd like to add on a bit:

I find it telling that scientists over the last couple of thousand years have (in spite of having a bible) found that many things spoken about in the bible are not correct.

Would these scientists, without having a bible to read, have found any indication of intelligent design?

Date: 2009/11/18 12:19:00, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 18 2009,12:03)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 18 2009,03:20)
I don't think archaeologists are scientists. I don't think they do science for their conclusions. they are more like detectives.

I detect brain damage.

But was it designed?

Date: 2009/11/19 09:09:58, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Happy birthday... hug your ancestors.

Date: 2009/11/19 09:26:09, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 19 2009,03:16)
Your four points make my point.
The first can only deal with living creatures or its about mere bones and not living life which is the important thing of relationship.
The second is speculation and not biology.
The third is speculation in very atomic matters and not the actual living system of a creature. its a blueprint but not the house and not biology as a skilled profession.
The fourth is not biology but biogeography which is really just living quarters and speculation as to its relevance.

Biology is about blood and guts and not dust and atoms.
The prestige of biology which all recognize is great is wrongly usurped by evolution  researchers.

You are wrong.  You're also incorrect.  I'd like to add confused.

According to you, a disection is of no value to biologists because the critter is dead.  That doesn't even make sense.

1) One living things is only a part of what biologists study.  Have you ever heard of 'ecology'?  The study of living things and how they interact with the non-living environment.  Bones can only be made by living things, therefore the bones can tell us all kinds of things about the thing that was once living... like how big it was and how it moved.

2) Paleontology is not speculation... of course, you have to accept that bones were once inside something that was alive.

3) Wow, I just can't believe this level of ignorance.  You do realize that biologists (geneticists) are changing the DNA on purpose and then observing the results.  It takes a hell of a lot of skill to insert the flourescent genes from a jelly fish into corn and beetles and mice.  More skill than it takes to type on a keyboard, that's for sure.  By the way, almost anyone can look at a house blueprint and describe the house in much more detail than one could by walking through the house, because much of the important details of the house are covered by drywall.  Little things like plumbing and electrical systems (that are very important to the house) can only be understood through the blueprint once the house is finished.  

4) Really, it's just speculation that opossums live in America and possums live in Australia?  It's jsut speculation that every southern continent has a flightless bird that is more closely related to other continents flightless birds rather than other birds on that continent.

If Biology was just about blood and guts, then most everyone currently alive would be dead from things like smallpox, TB, and other virals that are not alive and can only be studied at the molecular level.

Biologists do some amazing work in the real world.  I guess in your world they don't do much.  How sad for your world.  I guess you better make sure that you only eat plants and animals native to Canada and make sure you don't use any drugs (because chemicals don't affect biology).  Oh, you better make sure you don't get diabetes because insulin is now derived from transgenic bacteria (all that silliness about chemicals and all).

Let me ask this... why does a marsupial wolf (Tasmanian wolf) and a mammal wolf (grey wolf) have different numbers and types of teeth?  Yet, the marsupial wolf has the same type and number of teeth as other marsupials and the mammal wolf has the same type and number of teeth as other mammals.

Please explain.

Date: 2009/11/20 09:03:00, Link
Author: OgreMkV
You can't really believe this.  Have you ever taken a Biology class?  

Here's the similarities between a Tasmanian wolf and a grey wolf.  They are mammals (assume that they have fur, vertebrae, four legs, etc.) and they have 'wolf' in their name.  The NAME is provided by humans.  It's a label, it really doesn't have anything to do with the reality of the animal.

A Tasmanian wolf IS NOT a wolf.  It is less closely related to a wolf that we are.  I, or anyone here, would be happy to explain everything I listed previously, but you are not willing to listen.  

Tell you what Robert.  You breed a brown bear and a great dane together and see what happens.  Then you breed a Tasmanian wolf (or are they extinct?  I forget) with a grey wolf and see what happens.  Then you breed a grey wolf and a great dane and see what happens.

I predict, because I'm a science guy, that the brown bear and great dane mating will not result in offspring.  Therefore they are not closely related.  

I predict the Tasmanian wolf and grey wolf mating will not result in offspring.  Therefore they are not closely related.

I predict the grey wolf and great dane mating will result in offspring, therefore the are very closely related.

It's called science, you might want to try it sometime.

Please note Robert.  I never said paleontology was Biology.  However, it is perfectly acceptable (to those of us in the real world) to use information from other fields to help with our work.  You know, kind of like electical engineers and software developers work together to make these things called computers.  

Robert, let me ask you this.  Is it permissible, by your standards to teach Astrology (not Astronomy) and Wiccan creation in my science class?

Date: 2009/11/20 10:40:53, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I wonder if Robert believes the marsupial cat and the house cat are more closely related than the cat and dog or the Tasmanian wolf and marsupial cat?

I mean, cats are of the same kind right?

Date: 2009/11/20 12:29:40, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I dint care who ya r... dat der is funny

Date: 2009/11/30 10:00:09, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Robert hasn't exploded yet?  Wow, I'm impressed... and saddened.

Anyway, I had big long argument for him, but I took out the extraneous words and it said... "Robert... learn... biology... first."

Date: 2009/11/30 10:47:45, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Steverino @ Nov. 24 2009,08:28)
This is a snippet of one of his responses:

Quote
The existence of God is not based on 'circumstantial evidence.' It is actually because God exists that anyone can call ANYTHING 'evidence.' God is the necessary precondition for the proof or evidence of anything as both presuppose the existence of universal, abstract, invariant laws, which cannot be accounted for outside of God, and are accounted for with God. You see Lisa, the very fact that you say that the site "really doesn't prove anything,' shows a precommitment to the very concept of proof which YOU cannot account for without God.

As far as you saying that it is "obvious to everyone" why I created the site, or basically, "It's true, because we all say it's true," I hope that's not your best argument, cause it that is a logical fallacy of "argumentum ad populum."

Sure lot'sof people say that "a god" exists, but it is usually not God at all, but an idol of their own making, so that they do not have to submit to the one true God of Christianity.


There...so, you can stop doing all the "sciencey" stuff.

But if God neccesary for water to exist, then why isn't he required for water to flow downhill?!?!?

Date: 2009/12/03 08:05:08, Link
Author: OgreMkV
NOT KYLIE!??!?!?!  [sniffle]

Anyway, Robert, you do realize that a marsupial cat is not a cat and a marsupial wolf is not a wolf, right?

These are "labels" that humans apply to things.

Why not start here: http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/Padian/kpslides.html#s091

and explain why the "inner skeleton" is so very different between Tasmanian (marsupial) wolfs and North American (placental) wolfs...

Date: 2009/12/04 07:53:18, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (inquiry @ Dec. 03 2009,21:54)
Okay, I meant to send a response to Khan but I wanted everyone to be able to see it.  So here it is a second time (I think the first one just went to khan). I'm not sure what you mean Khan by your statement. Also I didn't say where I stood. I asked what are the best arguments for either view. Do you or anyone else have an answer to the question? I'm trying to get a grasp on some of the best arguments for a strictly naturalistic universe and/or arguments that leave the door open to other possibilities.

best argument I've seen against a god or gods or godesses...
http://scienceblogs.com/notrock....age.php

Personally, I agree with this.  It's amazing how 'god' allows things to occur in one culture, but not in another.  Or how one person can think one way and know it's the Truf and how another person can call the first a heathen because the second person knows the Truf and the two Trufs are different.

You'd think god would like a little less ambiguity in his followers... unless he/she/it likes watching holy wars instead of reality TV like the rest of us. [Isn't that a depressing though: The universe is just a reality TV show for a bunch of hyper advanced aliens.]

Anyway, as I've asked before... please describe the difference (how we can measure and expected values of said measurements) between a universe that was specifically designed and one that occured via naturalistic methods.

Date: 2009/12/08 22:22:50, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I tried to write this three times before I just gave up.

Robert, you are wrong.  Incorrect, confused, brain-addled, and possibly mentally unbalanced.

Please, just stop.

Date: 2009/12/09 14:40:54, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Wasn't sure where to post this.

Kent Hovind's "pH.D." thesis is now on the intertubes here: http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki....rtation

If you are afraid of becoming stupid, then I suggest you don't read it.  This will kill brain cells faster than a .357 hollow point.

My 3-year makes more structured sentences and more effective arguments.  

This is slightly beyond hillarious... and yet somehow sad.

Date: 2009/12/10 08:04:11, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Robert you do realize that people named the marsupial wolf and the marsupial cat right?  They aren't really wolves and cats, right?  

When I go to her concert, I want to see Kylie's pouch.

Date: 2009/12/12 14:42:35, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (huwp @ Dec. 11 2009,08:48)
<disengaging lurk mode>

How very nice to see Kylie get a mention here.

Anyway, I'm sure you all know this, but you're never ever, ever, ever going to convince Robert that he might possibly be mistaken because he knows the Truth.  He knows it's the true Truth because he says so.

Still, Better the Devil You Know, especially On a Night Like This, even if it is a bit Slow.

:D

I'm going to re-lurk now... 3-2-1...

<engaging lurk mode>

I guess It's No Secret that Robert is nuts.  His argument is very Fragile.

Date: 2009/12/15 10:14:23, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Wait, I just want to be clear here Robert.  You think Felids and Marsupial Cats are the same, correct?

You think that these two critters are the same:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:QuollSS7196.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tigerramki.jpg

Because the Tiger and the Tiger Quoll (also known as the Native Cat) have the same name, then they are the same...

Date: 2010/02/19 13:49:19, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I don't know if I can handle reading through all of Rob's posts.

Did he ever answer the question about whether Kylie has a pouch or not and why or why not?

Date: 2010/02/22 22:22:28, Link
Author: OgreMkV
off topic, but the RichardDawkins.net forum is shutting down.  If there's any posts you want on that forum, get them within the next 30 days.

Date: 2010/02/23 09:10:02, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I'm gonna get out the popcorn and hope for a couple of students.  Since dawkins' forum is out, they might be hurting for some place to 'engage'...

I guess my biggest question for Dembski is "Why do you have this as a course requirement?  Aren't you afraid that the 1-2% of your students that can think might 'lose their way' when exposed to reality (and truth for that matter, not your truthiness)?"

If I were Dembski, I'd be worried sick about a student asking me a question from this thread.  

Of course, he probably figures out who the smart ones are with a pop-quiz on the first or second class day and then administratively drops them.

Date: 2010/02/23 10:02:14, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I'd like to throw something in the pot, if I may.  

In physics (way back when) we were taught about something that was called 'short infinity' or 'effective infinity'.  Basically, when you were measuring the effect of photons on a detector, then anything that was a 'good distance away' was 'effectively infinitly' far away.

So if you need to assume that the photons are travelling parallel to each other, then move your light source ten meters away and the photons hitting the detector will be effectively travelling an infinite distance and thus be parallel.

I think we have something like this in our universe.  We have 'effectively random'.  Is there something that is truly random?  Who knows?  But if there is no discerible pattern that we or our much more sensitive instruments and computers can detect, then it is effectively random and good enough for our purposes.

Is atmospheric noise truly random or is it determinable?  Theoritically, you could make a case for it being determinable.  However, you would have to know the starting position of every particle, field, energy state, etc. and be able to calculate with infinite precision every interaction and do so in near real time.  You'd need a computer... well... as big as the universe to do so.

Humans, are very, very good at spotting patterns, even in sometimes (otherwise) meaningless data.  We're so good at it, we often spot patterns that aren't there.  Which is why, when doing things like science, it is best to take humans out of the picture... even in the analysis.  We want to believe.*

Similarly, what is the 'purpose'?  Read Manifold: Space by Baxter.  His book suggests that evolution applies to the metaverse as well and our universe is merely one in a population of evolving universes whose purpose is to (of course) breed more universes.  Those universes that have certain characters (ability to form black holes) have more baby universes.  Intelligent life, eventually develops the ability to generate black holes, so a universe that is suitable for life has many, many more baby universes than others.  (It'd be like if bacteria had the ability to cause mammals to produce offspring.)

Anyway, the point is that there very well may be a purpose in the purely deterministic universe.  However, there is almost no way for a simple human mind to figure out either (the determinability or the purpose).

Of course, that and $4.50 will get you a latte.


* With respect to Chris Carter.

Date: 2010/02/23 12:49:09, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,05:34)
We can argue the effects of Darwinian ideology as the foundational support for secular reasoning in the abortion controversies and geriatric concerns. The emphasis on youth oriented dictates from WHO and the UN Human Rights Commission and Global Initiatives have its principles in Darwinian sciences such as, linguistics, behavioral ism and social sciences.

We've gone full bore into conspiracy theories here.  I think this should be added to the list... at the very end.


Anywho... daevans, please tell me where you plan to practice medicine.  I need to make sure I and my family members are as far away as possible.

Do you have a single shred of evidence for anything that you have said*?


* Please note, blog posts don't count as scientific evidence, except in the sense of 'so-and-so did indeed say what I claim he said'.  It does not support the facts or evidence of the claim itself.

Date: 2010/02/23 13:31:19, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38)

We saw what you wrote but what you really meant.


Who the fuck are you to decide what someone 'really meant'.  Normally, I'm a very nice person, but this pisses me off.

You do not have telepathy.
You do not have precognition.
You do not know me or anyone here.
You have no right to declare what SOMEONE ELSE said.

But that's OK, because you are under the same delusion that other creationists (excuse me 'IDists') are.  That is "You (somehow) know better than everyone else on the planet.

It is obvious from your posts that you barely understand the scientific method, but you still know more than thousands of real live scientists that bust ass day-in and day-out to provide YOU (Mr. med student) the tools that you must have to do your job (ever hear of anti-biotics, superbugs, or do you know where the most anti-bitoic resistant bacteria exist (hint, you'll be working there)).

Oh, and who the fuck is 'We'?  Are you in a computer lab with your buddies?  Are you using the 'royal we', your highness?  Are the rest of your little club too scared to jump in here?

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38)

(I never asked that I made a statement that I knew what it was)

( I know exactly how Darwinism works; The goal of the materialist is to prove, by hook or crook, that nature can be explained by undirected processes is actually what is based on superstition and mysticism)


Bullshit.  First rule of Darwinism is there is no darwinism.  

The goal of evolutionary SCIENCE is to show how the great diversity of life came about... AND provide tools that can be used to help us (Mr. med student).

You claim that scientists are lying about evolutionary theory.  There are many people in this 'debate' that are liars, but they are not on the science side.

Ask Meyer about the lies in his book.
Ask Dembski about the Harvard video (hint: It's called theft)
Ask Behe about lying to a court of law in Dover.


Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38)

( I really doubt if their are ANY working scientist here  from the adolescent attacks,  the rest you wrote is just crap. What is even more remarkable is that man being the result of undirected causes believes himself capable of defining a reality that is unpredictable if undirected. Why you want to remain ignorant is of coarse your own business not mine).


What would you know about working scientists?  What does belief have to do with science?  If you ask these questions, then you do not understand science.


Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38)

( As Professor Davison point out scientist don't debate. I would say you miss understand my attention... again. I know Darwinian evolution is a ideology I don't need to question it's validity any longer,  your attacks have delivered all the evidence I could ever wish for. The Darwinist attempts to deny that intelligent causes do not exist when all one needs do is imagine the progress and advancements of civilization without intelligence. The view of the metaphysical naturalist that wholly undirected natural causes govern the universe is patently false. Believing so is based on superstition and misguided faith. Darwinist depend on a "dumb public" for support and of coarse forums like this were numerous people can ambush anyone who question Darwin)


There is so much wrong here that I don't know where to start.

Let me ask you: Let's say there's a scientist.  He's a horrible rapist.  He beats his wife and children.  He's a true asshole.  

Does that automatically make any results, data, conclusions from his work wrong?

Of course it doesn't.  Therefore everything in your paragraph above is invalid.

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38)

( First let's be honest  you don't speak for working scientist you speak for your own personal experience. You get upset with other scientist who question your "Ideology" which doesn't even qualify for a theory. But you don't question your public school education because if you did you would have to question your atheistic faith, do you think your doing something "new". The same thing happened in the 60's with another religious movement which taught the same rebellious doctrine.)


We speak from evidence.  You speak from a holy book.
We speak from 150 years of data.  You speak from 2000 years of myth.
We speak from decades of dealing with creationists/IDists.  You speak from regurgitating the same crap that we dealt with 20 years ago.

You claim that you don't discuss God.  Then why do the leaders of the ID movement specifically claim that God is the designer?  Dembski, Meyers, Wells, they all say this.  YOU may not speak of God, but all other ID proponents do.  But, hey, you know more than thousands of scientists... I guess you know more about ID than the people that invented the modern concept too.

Again, if had a clue about the scientific process, you would know what it's like to stand in a crowd of expert scientists who are intent on trashing your hard work.  You will never understand the pride that comes when, at the end of those proceedings, a truly notable scientist in your field comes to you and says, "Damn, you convinced me son.  Good work."

All you have is a bunch scyophants preaching to the choir (literally in most cases).  You've never had to defend yourself against people who know what they are talking about.  Good luck...

Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38)

( I would further state  Intelligent Design, like evolution, is a fact and a scientific theory, whether or not it has yet produced any successful rigorous predictive commodities that can reliably discern ID as the best explanation of a phenomena. Let's not forget that when Darwin first theorized evolution, he had no method for inheritance and no rigorous predictive capacity.)


Please provide a single experiment that unambiguously (i.e. everyone agrees with that interpretation) that shows ID is true.

Please provide whatever evidence you have that ID is a fact.

Please provide the 'hypothesis' of ID.

Please explain why the leaders of ID (Dembski, Wells, Meyer, Behe, etc) have said "there is no ID theory"

I've been asking you people these questions for 15 years and no one can answer.


Quote (Daevans @ Feb. 23 2010,00:38)

( Share what knowledge? Your unfounded believe in Atheism. You see I hear people like you claim their is no debate yet here we are. On another level Scientist do disagree on this. Why are their so many Design institutes coming out?.What we see is  that mankind is anywhere near as close to explaining and defining origins let alone the workings of the universe , but what we do need is better and more in depth methods of observation.Darwin is definitely being exposed and will suffer more blows to it's shaky foundation. If that angers the atheist in these forums so what. Science is about being popular it's about searching for real answers all which have taken a back seat to a ideology which is now beginning to suffer major set backs.


The only debate is how people like you and your 'institutes' can infect the education of my kids.  Personally speaking, you guys can write a million books a year, but the second you try to pass of your shit as science, then you have to face up to real science.

I've been listening to the 'Darwin's on his last legs' arguement for at least a decade.  You know what... no one cares what you think.

You either provide evidence or go running home to Dembski about how people were mean to you.

You want to argue about science... fine, bring it.  You want to argue about ideologies... well that's what WE are doing.  You can't because you're trying to make a duck into a crocodile.  

Evolution is not ideology.  Why not, because it  
1) is falsifiable
2) is testable
3) provides tools that can predict the results of observations and experiments

Tell you what, if you think you have a chance, I've got two strings of numbers on my home computer.  (I'm at work now.)  If you are up to the challenge, I'll post them here and you can take Dembski's design filters or whatever the heck they are and tell me which one is designed (by me using very specific numbers) and which one is random (produced by atmospheric noise) and show the calculations that you used to arrive at that decision.

I triple dog dare you.  Hell, I dare Dembski, to.  Should be easy for a fact and a theory.

Date: 2010/02/23 13:36:34, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,13:34)
OgreMkV,

I'm interested in the strings, when you get a moment.

No problem, I'll post them when I get home.  I'm about to head out for the day.  We've got about an inch of snow here.  That's somewhat unusual for central Texas.

Date: 2010/02/23 14:19:49, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,13:34)
OgreMkV,

I'm interested in the strings, when you get a moment.

A) 19372082339311710152086213620575697824755571720

B) 97565835082747442479890364189494781845201746854


one string is designed (by me)
one string is random (random.org)

which is which and why?

Date: 2010/02/23 14:59:19, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 23 2010,14:26)
I think A is designed by you because of Benford's Law.

Or something like that. ;-)

Louis

Just to warn you...

one of my jobs (sort of) is assisting with statistical analysis of standardized tests for some of the state exit level tests.

In other words, this is high risk information (because a student may not graduate).  So I get beat in the head with statistical data and crap... a lot.

Anyone else?

You have a 50/50 shot, but why is the important bit.

;)

Date: 2010/02/23 15:20:41, Link
Author: OgreMkV




Date: 2010/02/23 15:36:31, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Should we take a poll?  When shall I reveal the answer?  I will say that someone has gotten it correct.

BTW: You guys are waaaaaay smarter than any of the ID crowd.  They won't even try.  It's very funny.

Date: 2010/02/23 15:48:58, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 23 2010,15:41)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 23 2010,15:36)
Should we take a poll?  When shall I reveal the answer?  I will say that someone has gotten it correct.

[...]

Given that there are several people opting for B as random, and one for A as random, that's a safe statement. Given the phrasing, should we all congratulate Stephen Elliott?

heh, you've fallen for my trap!

No, 'A' is the non-random string.  It is a series of useful numbers to me (library ID, old school IDs, birthdays, etc) with '1' alternately added or subtracted from the number.  That is why the preponderance of '0'.

'B' is a random number generated from random.org using atmospheric noise.



Now, why won't IDists, who supposedly have the tool for this, ignore the challenge, when science does perfectly well in determining the correct answer.

I hope you lurkers are realizing something important from this.

Date: 2010/02/23 17:32:40, Link
Author: OgreMkV
har har hardy har har

Date: 2010/02/23 18:08:43, Link
Author: OgreMkV
<-- planning on taking the plunge.  du du dummm

Date: 2010/02/23 19:05:19, Link
Author: OgreMkV
nvm, I can't... it's too stoopid for me.  That's why I don't teach anymore... I just can't deal with teh stoopid.

Date: 2010/02/24 11:35:16, Link
Author: OgreMkV
"Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of
us being created in the image of a benevolent
God.”
- William Dembski quoted, Science Test, Church & State
Magazine, July / August 2000.



“The world is a mirror representing the divine
life…Intelligent design readily embraces the
sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed,
intelligent design is just the Logos theology of
John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information
theory.”
- William A. Dembski, Touchstone Magazine, July/August
1999.



"The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to
clear obstacles that prevent people from coming
to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if
there’s anything that I think has blocked the
growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit
and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus
Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It’s
important that we understand the world. God has
created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world."
William Dembski quoted, Benen, Steve, “The Discovery
Institute”, Church and State Magazine, May 2002.



Joe, perhaps to you, Dembski says that ID is not anti-evolution.  However, when he speaks to Christian groups, he is obviously (as quoted above) representing a specificly Christian message.

Now, I have a specific question that I would appreciate an answer to.

Is evolution the same as 'Darwinism'?
Is evolution the same (or uses) material naturalism?
(Simple, yes/no please)

Since you don't seem to be answering questions, I'll lay it out for you.

If either of these are true, then you are wrong.  The Wedge document (link above) specifically says (as the first goal): "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies."

Since Dembski is listed several times within this document, I can only assume that he supports this document.

The implication here is that you don't even understand ID.





[I predict some abusive remarks, none of which address anything I've said.]

Date: 2010/02/24 11:39:23, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Since we're on the subject:

What is a hypothesis that ID makes?
What experiment could be done to test this hypothesis and what values of the resulting measurement would support or refute the hypothesis?
What evidence would falsify ID?

Date: 2010/02/24 11:55:13, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:40)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 24 2010,11:35)
"Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of
us being created in the image of a benevolent
God.”
- William Dembski quoted, Science Test, Church & State
Magazine, July / August 2000.



“The world is a mirror representing the divine
life…Intelligent design readily embraces the
sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed,
intelligent design is just the Logos theology of
John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information
theory.”
- William A. Dembski, Touchstone Magazine, July/August
1999.



"The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to
clear obstacles that prevent people from coming
to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if
there’s anything that I think has blocked the
growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit
and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus
Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It’s
important that we understand the world. God has
created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world."
William Dembski quoted, Benen, Steve, “The Discovery
Institute”, Church and State Magazine, May 2002.



Joe, perhaps to you, Dembski says that ID is not anti-evolution.  However, when he speaks to Christian groups, he is obviously (as quoted above) representing a specificly Christian message.

Now, I have a specific question that I would appreciate an answer to.

Is evolution the same as 'Darwinism'?
Is evolution the same (or uses) material naturalism?
(Simple, yes/no please)

Since you don't seem to be answering questions, I'll lay it out for you.

If either of these are true, then you are wrong.  The Wedge document (link above) specifically says (as the first goal): "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies."

Since Dembski is listed several times within this document, I can only assume that he supports this document.

The implication here is that you don't even understand ID.





[I predict some abusive remarks, none of which address anything I've said.]

Ogre,

I take it that you have no idea what evolution is even though I provided a link.

Quote
Is evolution the same as 'Darwinism'?


No.

Quote
Is evolution the same (or uses) material naturalism?


Not sure how you are defining MN.

Also ID seeks to replace the blind watchmaker thesis ONLY.

What part of that don't you understand?

I'm sorry, I thought you were here to defend ID, not attack evolution.

I was actually hoping you understood ID so you could explain it to me.  I guess I'll just wait for Dembski.

Date: 2010/02/24 12:11:00, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 24 2010,11:42)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 24 2010,11:39)
Since we're on the subject:

What is a hypothesis that ID makes?
What experiment could be done to test this hypothesis and what values of the resulting measurement would support or refute the hypothesis?
What evidence would falsify ID?

Supporting ID complete with a design hypothesis.

To test the design inference all one has to do is to demonstrate that the object/ event in question can arise via nature, operating freely- ie it is reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity.

If nature, operating freely can account for it then the design inference is unwarranted.

So there you have it. All the anti-ID mob has to do is to actually start supporting their position and ID will fade away...

Still doesn't understand how science works.

"To test the design inference all one has to do is to demonstrate that the object/ event in question can arise via nature, operating freely- ie it is reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity."

This is not a test that has any value.  It is subjective.  You will obviously decide that everything is designed.  While others may or may not.

Here's an example (heck it's all the work done for you, all you have to do is fill in some blanks and do the calculation).

If the E. coli flagellum is designed, then we should see a specified complexity value of _.  If the flagellum is not designed, then the specified complexity value is less than (same as above).

The measurements that we will use for determining specified complexity are
1) _
etc.
(a series of structures, sequences, etc. that will be measured and values inserted into an equation (or series))

To determine the value for specified complexity, we do , and , ____ (do maths).

Thus our hypothesis (the if/then statement above) is (supported/ not supported) by our calculations.


See how easy it is?  This is what a proper science report should look like in the 6th grade.  If you want to do a real grown-up science report, then you should include the references to every paper and journal article that discuss your hypothesis, flagellum, and maths REGARDLESS of whether that paper supports your position or not and show why your results are more accurate than the ones against your position.

Then you can send this into a real peer-reviewed journal whose many reviewers will proceed to examine your work in great detail.  If it passes them, then YOU will have been the first person ever to do ID research.

Then and only then will anyone in the scientific community take ID seriously.  As far as taking you seriously, I suggest you start with a new attitude and being a little nicer.


BTW: You forgot to discuss the 'falsification' part of ID.

Date: 2010/02/24 12:14:38, Link
Author: OgreMkV
crud, the editor took a big chunk of the middle of my post out.  So much for 'preview'.

The part that's missing is where you compare your results to an object that is of known design (like a car) and random values for your measurements.  Then you can do some statistical tests on the results and see if there is any difference.

Date: 2010/02/24 17:29:38, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Richard,

 You also forgot to add
"cursing anyone who asks a question"
"cursing anyone who points to a fallacy"
"cursing anyone who counters the arguement"
"cursing anyone... well... anyone"

Date: 2010/02/24 20:49:31, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 24 2010,19:55)
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 24 2010,18:56)
That'd be a far more interesting read than the pissing contest with GI Joe.

Howabout a pissing ON Joe G contest?

Only from the roof.  I'm not getting my stuff anywhere close to him...

Date: 2010/02/25 07:52:08, Link
Author: OgreMkV
McLeroy is lying to the press.  He does want creationism taught in classrooms.  He has totally ignored many of the suggestions of the experts (teachers and scientists) who wrote the standards.

He's also a revisionist historian.  He thinks that Joe McCarthy is a great American hero.

I apologize for my state, which I love, I just hate the idiots that are in charge of it.

Date: 2010/02/25 08:24:20, Link
Author: OgreMkV
5 nucleotide rybozyme.  That's a short ribozyme.

Money quote "To see this, consider that, to pick every possible RNA pentamer sequence from arbitrary pentamers (with probability 0.9975), one needs only accumulate 4.1 × 10?18 gm of RNA. To possess every tetramer (with probability 0.9975) from a pool of arbitrary tetramers, one would need 3.4 × 10?18 gm RNA. In a real polymerization, one would have a distribution of lengths; nonetheless, with only attograms of total RNA of distributed short lengths from some geochemical source, one would have not only our ribozyme, but every activity of comparable size."

Science Daily Report

PNAS Paper

Date: 2010/02/25 08:35:32, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Not an epically cool science like the 5-nt ribozyme, but a "Things that make you go hmmm..." science.

Liberals and Atheists smarter?

Date: 2010/02/25 20:06:39, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Hey Joe, you do realize that it only takes 5 nucleotides to form a functional ribozyme that can catalyze other ribozymes and thus... everything.

5... that's it.

All Dembski's meaningless calculations are now well and truly useless.  They were useless before, but he still can't admit it.  

Tell me, Joe.  Have you ever done a calculation?  

So, when are you going to fill in the blanks of the 6th grade level lab report.  Shouldn't be too hard for a genius like you.

How about this Joe: Rank the following in specified complexity.

A) Homo sapien
B) Mycoplasma genitalium
C) Amoeba dubia

kthnx

Date: 2010/02/25 20:08:59, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Can you answer questions?  This symbol '?' means that we are asking you for information.

You refusing to provide information, especially some of the politely worded requests, just makes you look like a foul-mouthed jerk.

Are you a Christian?  If so, you're setting a really horrible example.  If not, then you are still setting a really horrible example.

Now, answer some questions or go away.

Date: 2010/02/25 20:46:31, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 25 2010,20:14)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 25 2010,20:06)
Tell me, Joe.  Have you ever done a calculation?  

He sure has!  Behold!

I don't believe you.

All I get in an error from the link.

Date: 2010/02/25 21:52:18, Link
Author: OgreMkV
hmmm... apparently the information content of the webpage was too much for my old PC to calculate... or something like that.

I still call BS on the calculation.


Quote
A simple character count reveals 202 characters which translates into 1010 bits of information/ specified complexity..


Those are the only two numbers in the whole darn post.  There is no explanation of how 202 characters = 1010 bits.

The implication is that 5 bits = 1 character, but why?

Standard ASCII had 8 bits per character (including all numbers, punctuation, control functions, and a space).  

Because this is from an ID blog and there's really no chance that they understand these types of things, I'll quote from wiki

Quote
A fair coin has an entropy of one bit. However, if the coin is not fair, then the uncertainty is lower (if asked to bet on the next outcome, we would bet preferentially on the most frequent result), and thus the Shannon entropy is lower. Mathematically, a coin flip is an example of a Bernoulli trial, and its entropy is given by the binary entropy function. A long string of repeating characters has an entropy rate of 0, since every character is predictable. The entropy rate of English text is between 1.0 and 1.5 bits per letter,[1] or as low as 0.6 to 1.3 bits per letter, according to estimates by Shannon based on human experiments.[2]
Wikipedia - Entropy (Information Theory)

So, Joe, please do explain how you arrived at your 'calculation'*.  Why you used the values that you did and what was the point of the exercise (other than showing off 3rd grade level math skills).


* I hesitate to call multiplying a 3 digit number by 5 a 'calculation'.  In the strictest sense of the word, it is a calculation, but it is so trivial that any reasonably competent 3rd grader could accomplish the same thing and with more explanation as to 'why' he/she performed the calculation.

Date: 2010/02/26 08:14:47, Link
Author: OgreMkV
"boom" said Chriton as he activated the device and created a solar system sized black hole.

Date: 2010/02/26 13:50:25, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Feb. 25 2010,23:17)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 25 2010,07:52)
McLeroy is lying to the press.  He does want creationism taught in classrooms.  He has totally ignored many of the suggestions of the experts (teachers and scientists) who wrote the standards.

He's also a revisionist historian.  He thinks that Joe McCarthy is a great American hero.

I apologize for my state, which I love, I just hate the idiots that are in charge of it.

education should teach students the facts, provides them with logical tools to use those facts and perfect the student’s ability to relate those facts to others. However,  the process of teaching students to think extends far beyond filling their heads with knowledge. Like I said we need to return to the old system of learning and make student excel and not reward poor education.

That's one reason I quit teaching.  After I got 'a talking to' by the principle about teaching evolution, I had to explain to her that evolution is a standard that we are required by the state to teach.

I had too many grades changed after the fact to deal with it any more.  The complaints raised to the Texas school board gained my school a 'conservetor' which basically was a non-voting member of the school board for 18 months.  Yep, that helped a bunch.

I was really pissed when one of the smartest kids I know was denied entrance to UT, but our star running back who had a straight 'D' average got a full ride scholarship to UT.  Then flunked out in his second semester and was drafted to Cincinati (I think).  The smart kid?  He's Best Buy geek Squad kid because he's having to pay for his mother's lack of welfare.

Date: 2010/02/26 21:41:28, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 25 2010,10:31)
I mentioned this marketing idea to one of the senior people in the marketing dept.

My P45*. I has it.

Louis

*P45 = UK equivalent of a pink slip. Not this kind of pink slip:



Sadly.

ETA: The lady in the photo is the senior person in marketing I mentioned it to. What a coinkydink!

Sorry, but this deserves to be on this page.  After having to look at ITGx2 and a dork with an Easy Bake.... shudder.

And I don't care what you guys think, I think she's lovely.

Date: 2010/02/26 21:48:39, Link
Author: OgreMkV

Date: 2010/02/26 23:22:32, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Could not agree more.

Date: 2010/02/26 23:47:25, Link
Author: OgreMkV


My baby.  Yes it was a Dodge, but Caroll Shelby himself built the engine, turbo, and transmission.  I was the only person that could work on it.  Even the Dodge mechanics went "WTF?" when they opened the hood.

With the wastegate disconnected, I could outrun a Z28 at 18 pounds of boost.  At 19 pounds of boost engine parts started coming through the hood.  

When we finally sold it, 12 years after the odometer died at 192,000 miles, I disconnected the wastegate.  We saw it three days later on the side of the road with the engine on fire.  (Don't blame me, we needed something other than a boy-racer.)

Anyway, I still miss that car... of course, here's what I have now...


I love this car too.  4 doors, 4 wheel drive, 4 cylinders, and 4 speeding tickets so far.

Date: 2010/02/26 23:48:42, Link
Author: OgreMkV
BTW: The first car I ever owned was a 1974 robin's egg blue Pinto station wagon.  All my friends laughed at it until I reminded them that their cars were broke down and they could walk to school or ride with me.

Date: 2010/02/26 23:56:18, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (1of63 @ Sep. 03 2008,14:24)
Quote (jeffox @ Aug. 08 2008,23:03)


I didn't get to the IWM in London.  I understand the guns are off of the U.S.S. Texas.  I did get to see H.M.S. Belfast up at Thames Pool.  Very nice, imo.

USS Texas!  Do me a favour!  They're British 15 in. naval guns, one from the WWI Revenge-class battleship HMS Ramillies, the other from the Revenge-class battleship HMS Resolution, later from the monitor HMS Roberts

Hands up all those who know what a monitor is - apart from being the thing you look at when you're typing your reply to this.

I used to volunteer at the USS Texas.  

I know exactly what a monitor is... a very low freeboard platform with a big ass gun mounted on it.  Stupid things really especially when you send out in to the ocean like the Brits tried to...

Date: 2010/02/27 08:01:41, Link
Author: OgreMkV
In my old school, I had the highest TAKS (state mandated standardized test) rating in Biology at 33% of my students passed (yes, only 33% passed).  The two coaches in our department averaged single digit pass rates (one at 8% and one at 7%).  

They are still there while I moved on.  

Of course it was kind of hard to do anything but teach from the book when I was in a portable building with no heat, no AC, no water, no electricity (except for lights) and a 2 foot by 2 foot blackboard.  Oh, and only a class set of books.

Date: 2010/02/27 20:26:06, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (ck1 @ Feb. 27 2010,12:07)
Quote
. . . And while the board apparently won't take up intelligent design, several members expect a battle over how evolution is treated in science textbooks, although that won't be up for debate until 2011. Mr. McLeroy and others say they'll push for books to include a more thorough examination of weaknesses in the theory of evolution.


Do these people ever provide a list of the "weaknesses" of the ToE they wish to include in science classes?

The people involved don't know anything about science.  All they know is that "evilution = hate jeebus"

Date: 2010/02/28 08:24:23, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 28 2010,07:49)
Quote (Patrickarbuthnot @ Feb. 28 2010,03:02)
Critical thinking must be re introduced back into school or else why teach anything?

When was it taken out, would you say?

To be honest, I don't think it was ever really a part of school.  I never had any when I was in school (80s).  My favorite line is that I learned to think in spite of school, not because of it.

There's a significant portion of the (student) population that is actually offended if they are required to think.  Regurgitation is the rule and it's hard to get past that.

I know what people say about standardized testing, but since I work in that industry, I'll say that it can be a good thing.  The problem is that many states reject test questions that they think the kids can't answer.  The state I work for (No, I won't say which one) is really good about letting some really difficult, thinking questions through.  IMHO, they are doing pretty well.  Some other states... I wouldn't move there for love or money.

Date: 2010/02/28 13:13:16, Link
Author: OgreMkV
So where did the little wimp go?  He's too scared to answer questions?  

You know, a couple dozen posts of screaming and cursing (and a rant about how badass his POS car is) and nothing.  

1) Is this the best Dembski's team has?
2) If he's a Christian, then he has greatly supported my thoughts about that particular sub-species known as the Xian fundie.

Date: 2010/03/02 08:09:09, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Joe, are you ever going to put forth any positive evidence for ID, other than "I can sees it"?

When are you going to fill in the blanks on the ID science report I typed up for you?  You know where you have actual values for specified complexity and you compare those values to things that are of known design and known randomness.

Until you do that, your IDs are just a waste of electrons.

I'd also like to point out that Wells, Dembski, and Behe ARE ID.  They created it (well, after blatantly stealing it from Paley).  You haven't written several books on ID.  Until you do, then they get to decide what ID is, not you.

And they have all decided that ID is a religious program with no scientific merit.  So, are you going to stand up to Dembski and tell him that he's wrong and that ID isn't religious?

Date: 2010/03/02 08:15:33, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Insults... you're doing them wrong.

I half expected Joe to say, 'neener, neener, neener'.  But I realized that stringing together three multi-syllable words that weren’t curses is beyond your cognitive capability.  

How have I tested this hypothesis?  Well, my hypothesis predicts that Joe can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.  And observation has discovered a sprawling JoeG with partially masticated chewing gum lying beside him.

My hypothesis further predicts that JoeG is ugly.  The experiment was to compare JoeG with the hind end of a canine of indeterminate ancestry.  When presented to a random sample population, the majority found the dog’s hind end to more aesthetically pleasing.

Date: 2010/03/02 11:30:11, Link
Author: OgreMkV
sigh... he's not even trying to defend his position.  Just trying to make us play his game.

Hey Joe,

When did the designer last act?
What was the designer's last act?

and I'll type this one slowly for you...

IS THERE ANY OBJECTIVE MEASURE FOR SPECIFICITY (or whatever you guys call it now)?

bonus question: What unit is specificity measured in (I have a prediction regarding this answer, should you ever choose to jot yout thoughts down)?

Date: 2010/03/02 11:32:30, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,08:32)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 02 2010,08:09)
Joe, are you ever going to put forth any positive evidence for ID, other than "I can sees it"?

When are you going to fill in the blanks on the ID science report I typed up for you?  You know where you have actual values for specified complexity and you compare those values to things that are of known design and known randomness.

Until you do that, your IDs are just a waste of electrons.

I'd also like to point out that Wells, Dembski, and Behe ARE ID.  They created it (well, after blatantly stealing it from Paley).  You haven't written several books on ID.  Until you do, then they get to decide what ID is, not you.

And they have all decided that ID is a religious program with no scientific merit.  So, are you going to stand up to Dembski and tell him that he's wrong and that ID isn't religious?

Ogre,

Are you going to put fortth any positive evidence that supports your position?

BTW Dr Behe accepts Common Descent- meaning ID does not argue against Common Descent. And all three say ID is scientific.

It is based on observations and experiences. It can be objectively tested.

Now what?

You still don't have any way to test your claims.

All you have is the refusal to allow the design inference at all costs.

So tell me assface- how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?


<a href=http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2008/02/supporting-intelligent-design.html><b>Supporting ID</b></a>

and

<a href=http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010/02/more-evidence-for-intelligent-design.html><b>more evidence for ID</b></a>

You do realize that you can falsify ID just by substantiating the claims of your position?

I'll type this slowly: are YOU ever going to put forth some evidence for ID, on this here forum?  (Hint CTRL-C and CTRL-V are not evidence.)

Please use your words (minus the cursing, peer-reviewed journals frown on calling the editor 'dickhead').

Date: 2010/03/02 11:33:52, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,08:35)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 02 2010,08:15)
Insults... you're doing them wrong.

I half expected Joe to say, 'neener, neener, neener'.  But I realized that stringing together three multi-syllable words that weren’t curses is beyond your cognitive capability.  

How have I tested this hypothesis?  Well, my hypothesis predicts that Joe can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.  And observation has discovered a sprawling JoeG with partially masticated chewing gum lying beside him.

My hypothesis further predicts that JoeG is ugly.  The experiment was to compare JoeG with the hind end of a canine of indeterminate ancestry.  When presented to a random sample population, the majority found the dog’s hind end to more aesthetically pleasing.

What insults?

I am just making valid observations.

And yes I am ugly- so what?

At least I am not as moronic as you.

I can get plastic surgery but you will always be a fucking retard.

The prosecution rests.

Date: 2010/03/03 08:44:47, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 03 2010,06:54)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 02 2010,11:32)

I'll type this slowly: are YOU ever going to put forth some evidence for ID, on this here forum?  (Hint CTRL-C and CTRL-V are not evidence.)

Please use your words (minus the cursing, peer-reviewed journals frown on calling the editor 'dickhead').

Ogre,

I take it that you are too ignorant to follow the links I provided.

Not my problem asshole.

But anyway are YOU ever going to put forth some positive evidence to support your position?

For example how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Prediction confirmed.

Thanks Joe.  You know, you really aren't helping your case at all.  This viscious attitude is just making you look like a complete loser.  All I'm asking is that you spend a few minutes to type up the answers to my questions... which directly involve intelligent design.

Your refusal to do so (instead launching a diatribe against me) just indicates that you don't have any support and you know it.  Of course, we've known it for decades, just having confirmation from you is icing.

Now...

1) Do you have any evidence to support any proposition put forth by ID?
2) What is a testable, falsifiable hypothesis for ID? (remember, your previous attempt wasn't testable or falsifiable)
3) When did the designed last act?
4) What value and unit is the specified complexity for an organism measured in?  Why?

Can you answer these questions or not?  I don't want a youtube link.  I don't want a link to what someone else writes.  I want to know what you think.

You've obviously got some serious emotional attachment to the idea of ID.  I want to know why.  What about ID has got you so fired up that you can't even generate a response to some simple (even basic) questions about your 'theory'?

Dude, these are honest questions.  I'm sorry if you can't see that.  But don't you see that your attitude is really hurting you cause?

Or is it just more fun to curse at people than actually hold an adult conversation?

Date: 2010/03/03 14:12:50, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Link to previous post (copied below)

Joe,

The following (link above) is commentary on a UD poster.

Quote

I see Jerry's been attending the David Berlinski school of pulling large numbers out your ass:
   [Quote ]
This also does not make sense. Are there not cleanly delineated barriers between many species. I can name a million or two that have clear delineated barriers. For example, take a fish and a fruit fly. I can name a million or two where they are not. For example, beetles. I have no idea why you brought in the concept of a designer. ID does not rule out that a large percentage of species arrived by naturalistic means. It just is not 100%


[/quote]

The original post contains a link to the original UD post/comment.

So the questions are:
1) Do you agree with Jerry's claims?
2) If not, why not and what does Jerry have wrong?
3) If so, what percentage of organisms do have natural evolutionary histories and how did you arrive at that figure?
4) Are organisms that do not have natural evolutionary histories direct results of the designer?
5) Can you (or Jerry) name one organism that does not have a natural evolutionary history?  (not a group, not a genus, but a species)

Date: 2010/03/06 16:12:22, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Hey Joe,

Say it with me: Even if evolution is 100%, that does not mean that ID (or your religion) is in any way correct.

Man, this guy's a wimp.

Date: 2010/03/07 18:25:09, Link
Author: OgreMkV

Date: 2010/03/18 20:21:39, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Dang, he came back and I was too busy at work.

Oh well, he's just a great steaming pile of putrid pachyderm pustulance who's too scared to answer a simple question like 'how to calculate CSI?'.

I guess the fact that Dembski can't answer it either shouldn't inspire to suggest that such a pitiful example of the misery of the human condition could answer such a simple little question.

I guess fame and fortune will never amass to Joe, for he lost all the money he was going to use for research in buying up Grand Nationals when he heard they were 'destined to be a classic'.

So very, very sad.

Why Joe, I had such high hope for you, being the expert in ID and all and lying at the feet (ahem) of the master (in baiting), would explain such an absurdly simple concept as 'how do you calculate specified complexity?'

Date: 2010/03/19 22:03:40, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,01:12)
Also, to OgreMkV:

Dembski has the requirement in his syllabus for the purpose of discussion and sharing thoughts/ideas. I doubt that he is worried that any of his students might “lose their way” as you stated. Why do you automatically suspect that what his students have to say might be inherently false and what you (or others) have to say is truth? Haven’t you already then defeated the purpose of this forum?

Oh, and regarding your insolent comment about him administratively dropping his students, let’s be serious, stick to the forum’s purpose.

Hmmm... Consider the following:

The website he pretty much created (uncommon descent) to 'develop' his ideas of ID and show that they are calid is one of the most heavily moderated 'forums' that I've ever seen.

This forum (antievolution.org) has something like 15,000 posts worth of comments that have been moderated into non-existence, deleted, and users deleted for any argument or presentation of facts.  I've read through about 600 PAGES of posts where the people here are copying their comments and can show that their comments (generally speaking respectful and questioning) are deleted, while people who are not respectful or rational (in my opinion) are allowed to post freely and even turned in moderators for that forum (uncommon descent).

The prevailing evidence is that Dembski DOES NOT allow dissension in the ranks and those that disagree with him are removed with prejudice.  In fact, it can be shown, in several places, that posts regarding a particular point have been deleted, then the author of that posts says something to the order of "Where are all the counter arguments?  I must be right."

So please forgive me if I think that Dembski would lie, cheat or steal to promote a religious belief... it's only because I've seen the evidence.

Date: 2010/03/19 22:10:12, Link
Author: OgreMkV
BTW: Has anyone mentioned that right here on this very forum... science has done what Dembski et al cannot?

That is using their preferred method, determine which of strings is random and which is designed.

Several science types here did it and scored about an 80% success rate.  No IDer even bothered to try.

Date: 2010/03/20 13:52:37, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 19 2010,22:55)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 19 2010,23:03)
     
Quote (bjray @ Mar. 16 2010,01:12)
Also, to OgreMkV:

Dembski has the requirement in his syllabus for the purpose of discussion and sharing thoughts/ideas. I doubt that he is worried that any of his students might “lose their way” as you stated. Why do you automatically suspect that what his students have to say might be inherently false and what you (or others) have to say is truth? Haven’t you already then defeated the purpose of this forum?

Oh, and regarding your insolent comment about him administratively dropping his students, let’s be serious, stick to the forum’s purpose.

Hmmm... Consider the following:

The website he pretty much created (uncommon descent) to 'develop' his ideas of ID and show that they are calid is one of the most heavily moderated 'forums' that I've ever seen.

This forum (antievolution.org) has something like 15,000 posts worth of comments that have been moderated into non-existence, deleted, and users deleted for any argument or presentation of facts.  I've read through about 600 PAGES of posts where the people here are copying their comments and can show that their comments (generally speaking respectful and questioning) are deleted, while people who are not respectful or rational (in my opinion) are allowed to post freely and even turned in moderators for that forum (uncommon descent).

The prevailing evidence is that Dembski DOES NOT allow dissension in the ranks and those that disagree with him are removed with prejudice.  In fact, it can be shown, in several places, that posts regarding a particular point have been deleted, then the author of that posts says something to the order of "Where are all the counter arguments?  I must be right."

So please forgive me if I think that Dembski would lie, cheat or steal to promote a religious belief... it's only because I've seen the evidence.

Ogre, strange for me to be saying this, but I think you're overstating this a bit, at least vis your numbers. Also, Dembski no longer has control of UD. Since his departure moderation has become, if anything, more hypocritical and underhanded. At least DaveTard was straightforward - even exhibitionistic - about his moderation decisions. Clive is a furtive coward.

That said, bjray be sure to check out the Blogczar thread, and see the sorry spectacle for yourself.

I posted at UD briefly as Reciprocating_Bill, for many months as Diffaxial, and for a month or two as Voice Coil. Search UD for those names, read their comments, and see if you can detect the reason for my being banned thrice.

[edit for clarity]

Bill... OK, I'll agree that I may have overstated things... a little.

However, there are three full threads of these comments... and I've never seen Dembski in any forum that wasn't under his control or did not allow comments.

Date: 2010/03/25 21:37:13, Link
Author: OgreMkV
OK, let's play nice with the chew toys... I mean nice Christian person.

Let me just ask a few questions to get started and then you can ask me some.  We can discuss our answers and why.  Fair enough?  Let's begin.

1) What specific religion do you belong to?
2) Why?
3) Have you studied in depth (i.e. read their holy book or more than one learned commentary regarding the religion that is NOT written by someone of your own faith) any other religion?
4) Have you taken genetics? statistics? historical geology? comparative anatomy?
5) Have you read your holy book cover to cover?  How many times?  In what translations?
6) Do you have any evidence that any (you pick) creation story is factual (by this I mean, external from the story itself)?
7) Have you ever done as your doctor prescribed an taken an entire course of anti-biotics?

That should get us started.  

Thanks
Ogre

Date: 2010/03/25 21:45:40, Link
Author: OgreMkV
So, by my records, the score is Oogy to 8.5926549 and a half.

Ames appeared to be leading, but he was bumped into the vortex zone and forced to sing the "I'm very sorry song" backwards.

Louis, of course, came out to a rousing start, faltered on the 59th blue wicket, and was tagged out on second base by getting hit with a golf ball fired from a 00 gauge shotgun... that's gonna leave a mark.

FrankH had to hop backwards on one foot until someone reminded him he did that last time.  Then he bought boardwalk and proceeded to try and place every anatomical part on the red circles.

Oh, and I know who Cutty Sark is... so don't try to trick me.

Date: 2010/03/27 10:59:33, Link
Author: OgreMkV
So, I'm pretty much right thinking that they are cowards?  Two posts max
complain
persecution complex
run away
don't answer any questions
run away faster
refuse to engage in reasonable debate
flee

You'd think we were vorpal bunnies or something.

Date: 2010/03/27 21:00:20, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 27 2010,16:29)
Quote (Quack @ Mar. 27 2010,15:31)
You will not get such treatment here.  If you are interested in talking science, there are many here who will be happy to discuss it with you.

I just hate this thread, it is so damn boring. Latest bore is cdanner, who is doing his best to avoid discussing science.

ppb, you echo my mind.

I couldn't care less about Dembski's credentials WRT to God, science, dignity, honesty or whatever - the same goes for cdanner, but I really would appreciate a few words about science, in particular WRT to the 150 years old theory of evolution.

cdanner, have you got any questions at all about evolution, something you want to learn?[/quote]
Quack - I don't think they want to learn anything.  If they did, would they be taking a class from Dr. Dr. D?

I'm not sure that it's so much 'they don't want to learn anything'.

Instead, it really sounds like they can't even grasp the concept that there is stuff to learn other than theology.

It's why they always claim that atheism is a religion.  The old 'you can't not believe in something unless it actually exists to not believe in' argument.

People like these poor smucks have been so brainwashed that they literally cannot grasp the fact that something other than the Bible has a valid answer.  Everything in their universe must be interpreted through the bible... of course, that's worshiping the bible instead of god, which is a cardinal sin (number 1 of the commandments if I recall correctly).  

One thing I recently heard about really put this in the proper light.  Christians universally loathe Judas.  However, without him, the new testament would the be bronze age equivalent of a Billy Graham crusade.  Their Jesus had to die, Judas arranged for it to happen.  Christians everywhere should be praising Judas a hero, not condemning him.  One dead martyr is worth a thousand live evangelists.

Please return to the regularly scheduled none action from Dembski's chickens.

Date: 2010/03/28 13:09:28, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 28 2010,11:55)
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 28 2010,09:35)
Dr. Dr. Dembski - The Philo 4483 Students await their next dangerous mission!

Well, these are just kids. And they are fundy Christian kids.

In their bent minds, calling scientists, or non-creationists satanists, the Damned, liars etc... are not insults.

However, pointing out that they are profoundly ignorant with the intellects of boiled peanuts is an attack on God, America, and Motherhood.

One reason I'm no longer a Christian... everyone I've ever met is a hypocrite... including my family.

Date: 2010/03/28 13:15:00, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Mar. 28 2010,10:59)
Dr. Dembski chose a very interesting quote for his introduction on the syllabus...
   
Quote
What you believe to be true will control you whether it’s true or not.
–Jeremy LaBorde

This quote is fine for philosophy and morality and ethics (up to a point).  But in reality, it cannot apply to science.

When PE came out, I dearly wanted it not to be true.  Still, the evidence mounted up and PE is more supported than not.

I can believe that my next check will have my bonus on it, so maybe I'll go spend some money. However if my belief is unfounded (and since the announcement of the bonus in January, so my belief has been unfounded in every paycheck so far), then I will be a bit of trouble come rent time.

What you believe should not be used to 'control' or as an excuse for a lack of control.

Date: 2010/03/28 13:45:41, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (lkeithlu @ Mar. 28 2010,13:35)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 28 2010,13:09)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 28 2010,11:55)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ Mar. 28 2010,09:35)
Dr. Dr. Dembski - The Philo 4483 Students await their next dangerous mission!

Well, these are just kids. And they are fundy Christian kids.

In their bent minds, calling scientists, or non-creationists satanists, the Damned, liars etc... are not insults.

However, pointing out that they are profoundly ignorant with the intellects of boiled peanuts is an attack on God, America, and Motherhood.

One reason I'm no longer a Christian... everyone I've ever met is a hypocrite... including my family.

The ones I have met are terrific: (of course, most of the ones I meet are Episcopalians) loving, generous and genuine. I am not one because I simply don't believe. Can't change that, though I have tried.

OK, I'll admit most of the Episcopals I've met are OK.

Let me rephrase.  All the Southern Baptists I know are hypocrites.

Date: 2010/03/28 17:16:46, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Mar. 28 2010,14:08)
Hi Albatrossity2,
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 28 2010,10:11)
It's possible that by providing an alternative to superstition and woo, science is seen as a "challenge" to Christianity. But that is not specific to Christianity; rational alternatives to superstition are a threat to all religions.

I agree, that is a good point.  There may be challenges unique to Christianity but since Muslims also generally believe Jesus was/is something special than just about any scientific challenge to Christianity would also be a challenge to Islam.

Let's see if any of Dr. Dembski's students are brave enough to respond to this.

EDIT - I think it would have been more appropriate for the syllabus to read...

"- Be able to summarize the main scientific challenges to the Christian faith [and vice versa.]"

Unless, of course, Dr. Dembski thinks there is nothing Christianity can challenge science with.

This phrase on the syllabus has been bugging me ever since I read and I'm still not sure I have the reason totally down.

But from what I can figure out is that this statement is decidedly NOT a fair proposition.  It implies that science is a challenge to Christianity or whatever religion and that's just not the case.

It's basically telling students to expect to find problems with science.

Of course, it's pretty much impossible for an undergrad student with little if no science or math training to find problems with science.  But people like Dembski keep telling these kids that basic algebra, made up numbers, and incorrect versions of the science are problems for science.

It's a straight up lie.

Date: 2010/03/29 12:14:45, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,11:25)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 18 2010,20:21)
Dang, he came back and I was too busy at work.

Oh well, he's just a great steaming pile of putrid pachyderm pustulance who's too scared to answer a simple question like 'how to calculate CSI?'.

I guess the fact that Dembski can't answer it either shouldn't inspire to suggest that such a pitiful example of the misery of the human condition could answer such a simple little question.

I guess fame and fortune will never amass to Joe, for he lost all the money he was going to use for research in buying up Grand Nationals when he heard they were 'destined to be a classic'.

So very, very sad.

Why Joe, I had such high hope for you, being the expert in ID and all and lying at the feet (ahem) of the master (in baiting), would explain such an absurdly simple concept as 'how do you calculate specified complexity?'

You don't calculate CSI you measure it.

Well you measure the specified information to see if CSI is present.

Excellent.  What device do we use to measure the specified information?  What units is specified information measured in?

Pick any three objects, organisms, or material structures and measure their specified information.  Please explain why you measured them that way and why the results are as they are.

kthnx

Date: 2010/03/29 17:46:41, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Joe... I'll use small words.

Aardvark is not the animal.
Aardvark is random string of symbols used to represent the animal.
Aardvark is a poor way of identifying an animal species and an even poorer way of defining an individual animal.

To properly define the species, you need the scientific name of the animal species.

To properly define an individual, you need a very specific set of characters that uniquely identify that animal as compared to any other individual that may look like it.

So when you count the letters in the word, you're just wanking.

BTW: I already digested and hocked up your blog post.  It was stupid (as shown above).

So WHAT DO YOU MEASURE and WHAT UNITS DO YOU USE?

Or maybe you don't understand the word 'measure'???

Date: 2010/03/30 08:49:08, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (sledgehammer @ Mar. 29 2010,23:48)
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 29 2010,18:30)

What if we freeze the aardvark?

Hey! At the aardvark triple point, we have, simultaneously, liquid aardvark, solid aardvark, and a snootful of aardvark gas.
Barkeep - gimme a pint of that there aardvark!

"I don't care who you are, dat dere is funny"**

** to quote the great philospher.

Date: 2010/03/30 08:55:48, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Aardvark Mitochondrial RNA sequenced

Now, this isn't the whole aardvark genome, but (from what I read) the aardvark has a unique place in our world.  It's the only living species of the order Tubulidentata.  So the authors sequenced the mitochondrial RNA to help scientists figure out what are the nearest relatives to the aardvark.

Tell you what.  I will publicly apologize to you and the ID movement and write up a post for rational-skeptic.org if you 'Joe' can use CSI to determine what the nearest relative to the aardvark is.  Now, no fair cheating and reading the paper (above) for the answer.  Since I've already given you the science answer, I'll need a very detailed treatment from you (or Dembski or Meyer or Behe) as to what was measured and calculated for each species you compare the aardvark to and why the measurements and calcuation result in the aardvark's position as you describe it.

Go.

Date: 2010/04/01 19:22:33, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I've been reading the AFdave thread.  If it ends with him announcing himself as a Poe, I will scream, then laugh in relief.  

If joe does so, then he's the worst Poe ever.  I'm still waiting for an answer to my challenge.  I'm guessing him and Dembski are discussing ways to confuse me.  It shouldn't be too hard... all they have to do is talk for a while.

Date: 2010/04/03 08:52:56, Link
Author: OgreMkV
So, how bout that challenge Joe?

Date: 2010/04/03 08:54:24, Link
Author: OgreMkV
SO, Joe, you gonna teach me how to measure CSI and calculate the values for some organisms?

Should we use the whole genome or will mitochondrial RNA work?

Date: 2010/04/03 11:47:15, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,08:11)

Quote
What are you going to teach in evolutionary class?


1) More organisms are born than can possibly survive in the environment.
2) Each organism is (sexual reproduction)/ may be (asexual reproduction) different from it's parent and siblings.
3) Any of the differences may confer an advantage to survival of the organism.
4) Organisms that survive tend to have more kids that look more like them than those that don't survive.

It's called evolution... learn what it is before trying to discredit it.

Quote
Hell you can't even demonstrate the transformations required are even possible.

whales, horses, humans

Quote
Can evolution be quantified?


You're the only one with this requirement.

Quote
IOW is there a way to measure it?


You're the only one with this requirement.

Quote
Can we measure how many mutations it takes to "evolve" a whale from a land animal?


You're the only one with this requirement.

Quote
No, then how can it be considered science?


Because it is observable, repeatable and falsifiable... unlike whatever tripe you promote.

Date: 2010/04/03 14:59:53, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,14:32)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,08:54)
SO, Joe, you gonna teach me how to measure CSI and calculate the values for some organisms?

Should we use the whole genome or will mitochondrial RNA work?

Don't worry about CSI-

Just start substantiating the claims of your position.

That is all you have to do.

Yet you don't- why is that?

It's your position.  If your position is supportable, then you can teach me how to use the tools.

Unless you're scared.
Unless you can't because you don't know how they work.
Unless you can't because they don't exist like I say they do.

Let me try this again Joe.  No one in science has to show shit to you.  You won't believe it regardless of what we show you.  

So, here's your chance to show us how your side works.  

Unless you're chicken.
Unless you can't.
Because you know that your side doesn't have dick.

Date: 2010/04/03 15:01:17, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I'm not double posting how chicken you are Joe.  Go to the other thread and show us that you know something other than the word 'asshole'.

Date: 2010/04/03 18:17:46, Link
Author: OgreMkV
AFDave's thread was at least more interesting.  He at least knew how to C&P from other websites.

Date: 2010/04/04 09:10:15, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Joe can't perform his measurements and he knows it.  All he has is bluster.  Chicken

Date: 2010/04/04 09:11:27, Link
Author: OgreMkV
It's been done TP.

The science types got about 80% correct with explanations why.

The ID types failed to even try.

Date: 2010/04/05 07:48:32, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Hey Joe,

Since you can't answer our question about how to measure/calculate whatever it is you think your 'hypothesis' is about, here's a much easier question for you and I'm really curious about the answer.

Do you realize that even if you prove evolution to be false, that does not automatically mean that your 'hypothesis' is correct?  (yes/no)

Date: 2010/04/06 15:43:54, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (blipey @ April 06 2010,14:46)
These are the foundation stones of ID (I guess), so please show how they are useful by giving detailed examples.

Thanks.

I think 'stones' may be too strong a word.

The foundation of ID is soiled toilet paper that's been floating for two weeks.

Date: 2010/04/13 09:33:52, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ April 13 2010,09:21)

FL, you ever figure out why ID isn't science and therefore can't be taught in public schools?

I mean, you just skipped that whole half of your initial debate thread.  I'm hoping that you figured it out.

Date: 2010/04/13 12:35:46, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ April 13 2010,11:11)
Hey, we spent quite a few pages showing why ID is science, remember?  AND.....you also remember that it wasn't me who ended that thread.  

You'll have to talk to the guy who pulled the plug.  He must'a got tired or something.

No falsification
No hypothesis
No measurement
No independent review of data
(Oh wait... no data!)

All science so far.

Let's see what we do have:
A federal court case where the main player in ID cancelled
That case unambiguously decided that ID is religion
Multiple quotes from Dembski and other proponents of ID that ID is religous based
A new book every few years that is pretty much immediately fisked (am I using that word correctly) by real scientists within a few weeks
The main proponents of ID speaking at churches rather than science symposiums

All science so far.

I know you didn't end the thread Floyd.  My question is why you refused to talk about what you said you would.  You said that you would spend about a month talking about why ID is science.  You're start time came and went and you didn't shift gears.  As I recall, most of this time was spent showing you that the bible can't be taken literally.

You said you would do something and you didn't do it.  That's what I wanted to know.

Thanks

Date: 2010/04/13 13:55:49, Link
Author: OgreMkV
So, how about it FL?  Why didn't you start the "ID should be taught in schools" topic?

How come you picked 2 items (one of which is only your opinion) out of 11 things I said.  

I notice you didn't comment on the 'no data' statement.  Or the 'Demski says ID is religous' statement.  Why is that?

Date: 2010/04/13 15:05:03, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 13 2010,14:00)
Quote (FloydLee @ April 13 2010,13:47)
But I would have stayed on,  as long as you guys wanted.  You, YOU, got tired.  Not me.

Bullshit.
And I present this as evidence:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=3131

As I recall, deadman closed the thread because FL had been off topic for too long.

I think FL and DM had some sort of agreement that (apparently) FL ignored.

That was why it was closed.

Although (having almost finished the entire AFDave thread), I must admit, Oldman has a very valid point.  ATBC seems perfectly will to take things as far as need be.

Date: 2010/04/13 15:44:55, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ April 13 2010,15:02)
You can be a scientist--an amateur scientist, and a good one--but never ever get a chance to publish in one of the professional science journals.  And you wouldn't be the first to do so.

http://amasci.com/amateur/sciam1.html

So how do you determine what's science?  What matters is whether your hypothesis can follow the clear steps of the scientific method, including most importantly, the capability of being falsified via observation.


THAT, is the difference between a scientific hypothesis and one that is not.

FL

There you go.  I'm actually impressed.  Although, if an amateur scientist did some good science, then there wouldn't be any reason for a peer-reviewed journal not to publish it.  

Now, what observation falsfies ID?

In other words (and I say this, because the usual ID response is some BS 'falsification' that isn't really)

1) What's the difference between an organism that's designed and one that is not designed?
2) What measurements will we make, with which tools, and what values indicate design or non-design?

Since we're talking about steps of the scientific method though, let's add

3) What is the actual hypothesis (and null) of ID?
4) What predictions come from this hypothesis?

Date: 2010/04/13 15:50:17, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ April 13 2010,15:22)
Quote
I notice you didn't comment on the 'no data' statement.  Or the 'Demski says ID is religous' statement.  Why is that?

Probably because
(1) you may not know what 'data' is or how much that term can cover, and

(2) Dembski never said that "ID is religious."  He has not retracted his claim that ID is a scientific hypothesis.

I know plenty well what data is.  Let's not get into a mud slinging contest here.  You don't know me, I don't know you... don't go there OK?

As far as number 2...

Quote
"We are taking an intuition most people have [the
belief in God] and making it a scientific and
academic enterprise. We are removing the most
important cultural roadblock to accepting the role
of God as creator."
- Phillip Johnson quoted, Enlisting Science to Find the
Fingerprints of a Creator, The LA Times, 3/25/2001.



Quote
"The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to
clear obstacles that prevent people from coming
to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if
there’s anything that I think has blocked the
growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit
and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus
Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It’s
important that we understand the world. God has
created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world."
William Dembski quoted, Benen, Steve, “The Discovery
Institute”, Church and State Magazine, May 2002.


Quote
"Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of
us being created in the image of a benevolent
God.”
- William Dembski quoted, Science Test, Church & State
Magazine, July / August 2000.


Quote
"If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of
Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully
human and fully divine) and view Christ as the
telos toward which God is drawing the whole of
creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves
Christ out of the picture must be seen as
fundamentally deficient."
- William Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between
Science & Theology, Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press,
1999.


Quote
“The world is a mirror representing the divine
life…Intelligent design readily embraces the
sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed,
intelligent design is just the Logos theology of
John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information
theory.”
- William A. Dembski, Touchstone Magazine, July/August
1999.


Quote
“Baylor's Mr. Dembski also has little interest in
publicizing his research through traditional means.
“I've just gotten kind of blasé about submitting
things to journals where you often wait two years
to get things into print," he says. "And I find I can
actually get the turnaround faster by writing a
book and getting the ideas expressed there. My
books sell well. I get a royalty. And the material
gets read more.””
Darwinism Under Attack, The Chronicle of Higher
Education, chronicle.com/free/v48/i17/17a00801.htm,
12/21/2001.


The first one is Johnson, but he's a founder of ID as well.

The last one is just a bonus to show you what Dembski's real purpose is... money.  And where his interest is not... doing any research to provide evidence that supports his opinion.

Date: 2010/04/14 08:39:11, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ April 13 2010,17:54)
Quote
What's the difference between an organism that's designed and one that is not designed?

The not-designed one willtotally lack any specified complexity / irreducible complexity, right down to its last little cell and that cell's components.

FL

Excellent.  So let's talk about the science of ID then.

I really don't care about the religous implications of ID if it is indeed a science.  

If it is not a science, then the religious implications are all that exist and ID is specifically prevented from being taught in public schools.

How do we measure specified complexity?
How do we measure irreducible complexity?
What units do we measure specified complexity in?
What units do we measure irreducible complexity in?
What tools do we use to specified complexity?
What tools do we use to measure irreducible complexity?
What values of the above measurements indicated that an organism has sufficient specified complexity to be designed?
What values of the above measurements indicated that an organism has sufficient specified complexity to be not designed?
What do we measure to determine specified complexity (gene, genome, what about a chimera does it have more, less, or the same specified complexity)?
What do we measure irreducible complexity (gene for the structure, the proteins in the structure, what about a part that has been co-opted for another purpose, like feathers for example, flight feathers are required for bird flight, but not for bat or insect flight, flight feathers can also be used for insulation, but let's not get caught up in minutia, let's get the big picture first)?
** Sorry for the stream of conciousness in that last.


You see FL, you can say all kinds of things.  But to actually be able to measure them and unambiguously come up with an answer that everyone who does the experiment (or observation) will also come up with, means that you may have something.

The above questions are the absolute minimum to even begin the study of ID science.

You can just start with one.  Of course, if you can answer any of them, you'll have done more than Dembski, Meyer, Behe, and all the others.

Date: 2010/04/14 12:36:18, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Robin @ April 14 2010,09:37)
[quote=FloydLee,April 13 2010,17:12][/quote]
Quote
If Dembski's specific 3-point hypothesis survives the falsification process,


LOL! Sorry FL, but unless Dembski publishes his "hypothesis" under the guidelines of the Scientific Method - which would include an actual scientific body for peer review - it won't be taken seriously or accepted as science. Dembski refuses to actually treat his "work" scientifically, preferring instead to publish it as popular philosophy in book form to general audiences. That's up to him of course - I don't begrudge the man making a buck or two off the rubes. But the fact is, right now nothing from ID has entered any scientific process, never mind falsification specifically, because Demski has chosen not to go that route.

I think the actual statement from Dembski was "[we don't need that] pathetic level of detail"

Makes one wonder what level of detail is required...

Date: 2010/04/14 14:18:10, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (didymos @ April 14 2010,13:57)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 14 2010,10:36)
I think the actual statement from Dembski was "[we don't need that] pathetic level of detail"

Makes one wonder what level of detail is required...

That classic post can be found here.  For Floyd to ignore/gloss over and everyone else's amusement, here's the money shot:
Quote

As for your example, I'm not going to take the bait. You're asking me to play a game: "Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position." ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.


Aaaand nigh on eight years later, ID still can't find its own irreducibly complex ass with both hands in a room full of mirrors.

So, the main proponent of ID says that it is basically useless...

Which anyone who's honest with himself knew all along.

Date: 2010/04/14 15:33:42, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ April 14 2010,15:14)
ID is not mechanistic, Dembski wrote.   So where's the published proof that a scientific hypothesis needs to be mechanistic in order to be science?  

(And what exactly will you evolutionists do to salvage your high-school biology textbooks' chemical evolution sales-pitch, if you insist on every scientific hypothesis being mechanistic?)

******

 
Quote
True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering. -- William Dembski


Anyone have a published disproof of that statement?

FL

Quote
mech·a·nis·tic (mk-nstk)
adj.
1. Mechanically determined.
2. Philosophy Of or relating to the philosophy of mechanism, especially tending to explain phenomena only by reference to physical or biological causes.
3. Automatic and impersonal; mechanical

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mechanistic

So, ID refuses to explain a phenomena by natural (physical or biological) causes.  So what's that leave?

Supernatural...

Dembski says that ID has a supernatural cause.  The only problem with that is you can't investigate supernatural causes by science.

If you could, then it would no longer be supernatural.  Then it would be <shudder> mechanistic.

So, Dembski (and you and ID) have a problem.  You keep saying that ID is science, but it doesn't have to do any of the things that science does.  So, where does that leave us?  

ID - the unscience (with respect to Occam's Toothbrush).

Since you've very effectively demonstrated that ID is not science... and we've demonstrated that the purpose of ID has a religous basis (Wedge document anyone)...

Then you can't teach ID in schools without violating the 1st Ammendment of the US Constitution.

Thanks for playing.  We'll see about a nice parting gift...


[Note: I almost added something sciencey, but I'd hate to disrupt this discussion about religion.]

Date: 2010/04/14 16:10:46, Link
Author: OgreMkV
You'd think ID proponents would understand that in science, sometimes you don't know.  And whomever has the best evidence will eventually be considered as most correct... until new evidence comes along.

Perhaps you should read up on some examples of how science continually reviews itself, investigates new possibilities, and constantly upgrades it's hypotheses until the best solution is found.

Examples:
Einstein's relitivity overturning Newtownian mechanics
PE vs. gradualism
warm-blooded vs. cold-blooded dinos
hominid evolution
the various models of the atom
etc
etc
etc

Unfortunately, science is the only one that does this.  ID is always the same: "an unknown designer did something at some point in time".

With respect to prebiotic origins of life... let me ask you... what's the shortest strand RNA that can self replicate?  When was this discovered?  Why is it important?

If you can correctly answer those questions, then you will see how science discovers how things could (yes 'could') have happened.  How we test and measure these things.  And how repeatability is used in science.

{Insert prediction regarding the 'you weren't there argument'.  I can't wait for this one.}

Date: 2010/04/14 20:02:45, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 14 2010,08:39)
Quote (FloydLee @ April 13 2010,17:54)

The not-designed one willtotally lack any specified complexity / irreducible complexity, right down to its last little cell and that cell's components.

FL

Excellent.  So let's talk about the science of ID then.

I really don't care about the religous implications of ID if it is indeed a science.  

If it is not a science, then the religious implications are all that exist and ID is specifically prevented from being taught in public schools.

How do we measure specified complexity?
How do we measure irreducible complexity?
What units do we measure specified complexity in?
What units do we measure irreducible complexity in?
What tools do we use to specified complexity?
What tools do we use to measure irreducible complexity?
What values of the above measurements indicated that an organism has sufficient specified complexity to be designed?
What values of the above measurements indicated that an organism has sufficient specified complexity to be not designed?
What do we measure to determine specified complexity (gene, genome, what about a chimera does it have more, less, or the same specified complexity)?
What do we measure irreducible complexity (gene for the structure, the proteins in the structure, what about a part that has been co-opted for another purpose, like feathers for example, flight feathers are required for bird flight, but not for bat or insect flight, flight feathers can also be used for insulation, but let's not get caught up in minutia, let's get the big picture first)?
** Sorry for the stream of conciousness in that last.


You see FL, you can say all kinds of things.  But to actually be able to measure them and unambiguously come up with an answer that everyone who does the experiment (or observation) will also come up with, means that you may have something.

The above questions are the absolute minimum to even begin the study of ID science.

You can just start with one.  Of course, if you can answer any of them, you'll have done more than Dembski, Meyer, Behe, and all the others.

Yep.  The onus is on you FL to show ID is a science.  Actually, we all know it's not science, you know it's not science, you just can't admit to being wrong.

All you have to do is admit there's no evidence for ID and it's not a science.  Then we can all happily discuss the real science.

If you do have this evidence... here's what you must do:  

Good luck since no one has ever been able to do this.  But I'll keep asking.

Date: 2010/04/15 10:32:46, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Hey FL, do you know how many RNA nuceotides must be connected to make a valid self-replicating molecule?

And please keep in mind, that I don't think that anyone uses Miller and Levine's Biology as the last word in biology.  I even used that book when I was teaching and I understood that
A) it's written at about a 7th grade level (writing two grade levels below the intended audience level is the norm for all school text books.
B) it's old... even as soon as the draft goes to the publisher, it's old.  As new information is literally coming on a daily basis.  (Except for ID of course.)

So, you got any evidence or plans to get evidence to support ID?

The reason I ask, of course, is even if you somehow managed to totally discredit evolutionary theory, that does [/B]not[B] automatically mean ID is correct.

Date: 2010/04/15 11:43:50, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ April 15 2010,10:46)
No mention about the latest edition of Glencoe Biology and its sanitized, missing-mechanism RNA World presentation, eh?

Again, the point is simply that you evolutionists don't require a scientific hypothesis to have a mechanism, when it suits you.  

You'll accept it as science, you'll teach it in high school biology class, in fact you're doing that in each of my hometown's high schools right this very minute (they all use Glencoe, for example.)

So, stay with the point please:  why the double standard?  Why insist that the ID hypothesis must be mechanistic, when you don't even follow that principle with your own "Somehow" chemical evolution hypothesis (-ses)?

FL, as I've said, this discussion is about the quality of ID being science.

Would you like a list of peer-reviewed articles that debate the validty of the RNA World hypothesis?

You see that's the critical point that you are missing.  Science changes.

What the Glencoe authors put in and take depends on a lot of things... not the least of which is the size of the book.

So how about ID?  Can you even test for ID (like we can with various prebiotic origins scenarios)?  Can you objectively evaluate the various ID scenarios (like we can with prebiotic origins scenarios)?

Why do you keep harping on science, when you can't answer any questions we ask about ID?  Would you like the list of questions that ID hasn't answered yet (and must)?

Finally, you keeping harping on fair treatment between ID and ToE.  You're absolutely correct... it's time that ID step up to the plate and start making predictions, measurements, pulications in peer-reviewed literature, admitting when mistakes are made, altering the theory when new evidence comes to light, and creating valuable tools for the continued examination replicating systems.

So, when are you going to start?

Date: 2010/04/15 20:47:25, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Actually, Floyd makes a very valid point.

Dembski changes his message to his audience.  When he is speaking in a religious magazine, his message is strictly religious.

When Dembski speaks to (or about) science, then there is all these sciency sounding words and no mention of religion.  

Looks like someone is using his speaking skills to get paid.

Anyway... Floyd, if you truly think that Dembski has offered a testable, falsifiable hypothesis for ID... then you obviously have no idea what these words mean.  Show me...

How do we measure specified complexity?
How do we measure irreducible complexity?
What units do we measure specified complexity in?
What units do we measure irreducible complexity in?
What tools do we use to specified complexity?
What tools do we use to measure irreducible complexity?
What values of the above measurements indicated that an organism has sufficient specified complexity to be designed?
What values of the above measurements indicated that an organism has sufficient specified complexity to be not designed?
What do we measure to determine specified complexity?
What do we measure irreducible complexity ?
We'll add EF to all of these...
Will a Muslim  scientist, an atheist scientist, and a Christian scientist all get exactly the same values (whatever they are) from Dembski's explanatory filter?  If yes, then it should be trivial to show this.  If not, then why not.

BTW: Someone remind me and I'll look at the high school texts at work in the morning.  I know I've got Holt, Pearson, Glencoe, and I think I have Campbell.  They may or may not be the most recent additions, but I'll happily look up the info for you.

In fact... I think I already did...

Date: 2010/04/15 21:10:50, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Crud, my google-fu is not effective tonight (too much allergy medication).

I could have sworn that I had posted the relevant pages from Miller Levine in the FL Debate thread.  

I know we had this discussion... maybe it wasn't FL though.  I thought it was.

Date: 2010/04/16 08:18:40, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Miller-Levine Biology (2008)* p425
Quote

Evolution of RNA and DNA Another unanswered question in the evolution of cells is the origin of DNA and RNA.  Remember that all cells are controlled by information stored in DNA, which is transcribed into RNA and then translated into proteins.  How could this complex biochemical machinery have evolved?

Science cannot yet solve this puzzle, although molecular biologists have made surprising discoveries in this area.  Under the right conditions, some RNA sequences can help DNA replicate.  Other RNA sequences process messenger RNA after transcriptions.  Still other catalyze chemical reactions.  Some RNA molecules even grow and duplicate themselves - suggesting that RNA might have existed before DNA.  A series of experiments that simulated conditions of the early Earth have suggested that small sequences of RNA could have formed and replicated on their own.** From this relatively simple RNA-based form of life, several steps could have led to the system of DNA-directed protein synthesis that exists now.


(my emphasis)

* not the 1993 version which no schools use anymore.  Most schools have an 8 year textbook replacement cycle, some go as long as 10 years.  If FL says that the 1993 book he quotes is 'current' or 'being used' in a classroom, I would find it very difficult to believe him without some significant evidence.

**I want to keep asking this FL, because you obviously have no idea what current research in molecular biology is.  What is the shortest RNA strand that can self replicate?  Come floyd, this is a simple google search.


BTW: I just did this to show the inherent uselessness of quote-mining... especially from books that are not current.  

This in no way implies that I care about arguing this point.  As far as I'm concerned, this is FL's chance to continue where the other thread left off... that is the claim that ID is science.

As usual (and totally unsurprisingly) Floyd has ignored every question about ID, has not produced and evidence, and not provided any information that would even begin suggesting that ID is a science.

So how about it Floyd.  ID as science... we gonna discuss that or are you going to keep bitching about evolution?  [Keeping in mind that even if you somehow managed to disprove evolution, it doesn't help ID in any way, shape, or form.]

Date: 2010/04/17 09:58:07, Link
Author: OgreMkV
1) If no one knows how to calculate CSI... does that mean there's no freaking point?  People blather on about it, but no one... no one can calculate it... including Dembski.  So what's the point?

2) Remember most religious students can't understand that some things (namely science) can exist without dogma.  Unfortunately, most high school science courses reinforce that with repetitive memorization of facts.

I dare any student of Demsbki... or Dembski himself to come on this board and present a testable, falsifiable ID-based hypothesis and a single experiment done by a 'creation scientist' that supports their hypothesis.

Would you like a list of things that ID must do to be considered science.  I have one and to date, not a single question has been answered.

If you keep ignoring these things, then we're going to have to assume that ID has no basis for science and is, instead, a socio-political movement to force the indoctrination of all students into a Judeo-Christian faith... which of course, is true and why ID hasn't won a court case... ever.

Date: 2010/04/17 16:26:16, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I think that the only reason Joe hasn't won a Darwin award is that he's still alive.

Date: 2010/04/17 16:27:44, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Oh right.  The self-serving, anti-Christian point.  But no actual scientific point.

Sometimes I really wish I was as immoral as these guys.  Image getting paid for 4 years to do nothing.  Getting a book advance and not having to write a book.  Wow... must be nice.

Date: 2010/04/17 20:45:40, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Well said Cubist.

bj, if you are a truly honest seeker of information, then you will get more than could ever imagine from the folks here.  Everyone from the humble high school teacher to the Ph.D. (several actually) who work with evolutionary principles on a daily basis.

Something to keep in mind is that the strength of a theory (remember, not the cop-show definition of theory, but the science definition) is how well it answers other questions.  Evolutionary principles have been used to do things from finding fairly specific fossils (look up: Tiktaalik) to things like how to defeat HIV and why superbugs (heavily anti-biotic resistant bacteria) exist.

What, in the last 15 or so years, has ID actually done that improves the understanding that humans have of the natural world?

If you are truly honest with yourself and willing to really test your dogma, then this is the place.  But if you want to argue about science, then you have to use science's rules.  That's the way it works.

Date: 2010/04/17 22:12:44, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Dr.GH @ April 17 2010,20:59)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 17 2010,18:45)
bj, if you are a truly honest seeker of information, then you will get more than could ever imagine from the folks here.  Everyone from the humble high school teacher to the Ph.D. (several actually) who work with evolutionary principles on a daily basis.

Heh heh, compared to Dembski's 2 PhDs (in very very similar topics for very similar work), we AtBTers can show up with how many PhDs? At least 8. Several more nearing completion.

I have over 200 college credit hours... but no degree beyond a bachelors... sigh.

Date: 2010/04/20 13:52:35, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ April 20 2010,10:35)
Quote
Show me...

How do we measure specified complexity?
How do we measure irreducible complexity?
What units do we measure specified complexity in?
What units do we measure irreducible complexity in?
What tools do we use to specified complexity?
What tools do we use to measure irreducible complexity?
What values of the above measurements indicated that an organism has sufficient specified complexity to be designed?
What values of the above measurements indicated that an organism has sufficient specified complexity to be not designed?
What do we measure to determine specified complexity?
What do we measure irreducible complexity ?
We'll add EF to all of these...


You know, Ogre, I'm sitting here with Dembski's basic book Intelligent Design (1999), along with some of his more technical stuff like "Specification:  the Pattern that Defines Intelligence""...

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.Specification.pdf

...and I'm just honestly wondering, Why won't Ogre just do 30 minutes of googling and reading the answers to his little laundry list for himself....?   Why hasn't he been to a library to even look at the basic easy-read Dembski book?

Tell me why, Ogre.  Is it so vital to persuade you that ID is science that I start running around doing all the homework you could do at your keyboard?  

Don't see it.  Who honestly cares if you are personally convinced or unconvinced?   I can't say I am.  Sorry to say it like that, but that's how you come across.  We did our debate.  Do some homework and show me you're interested.

Tell me why Floyd, you assume that I've never read Dembski or Meyer or Behe and haven't looked at their math (or lack thereof).

In all my years studying ID, tell me why I have never once seen a single calculation of specified complexity.  Tell FL, tell me why Dembski has never calculated the CSI, or EF, or IC or anything of a single organism, designed object, non-designed object, DNA strand, or protein.

That's all I really want FL.  I know you can't answer any of my questions.  I know you can't because Dembski can't and he invented the stupid concept.

Tell me Floyd, tell me why, in ten years are so of peddling CSI, EF, IR, and BS that Dembski has never bothered to actually use his ideas to do any actual, you know, work.

Here's my hypothesis and, like you do to us, you prove it wrong.

If Demski does any actual calculations in support of ID,  then it will prove his theory is BS.

So, come on FL.  Put up or shut up.

So, where's that evidence?  Where's that math?  You say, I can look it up on google, then give me the search terms, or a link.

BTW:
Even if you prove evolution wrong... even if you prove evolution is religion incarnate... there is still no support for ID.

And that's your problem.  Everything else you say or do that doesn't provide support for ID is just wanking.  Until some evidence to support whatever it is that ID says is brought out, then science (and science classrooms) are fully justified in totally ignoring it.

Date: 2010/04/20 14:14:18, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (FloydLee @ April 20 2010,10:23)
Quote
Is evolution religious?  No.


I think it's clear from the main debate thread that evolution is religious (at least if we read what evolutionists themselves publish.)

But, no need to rehash that debate.  You lost that one, and you can't get it back.

"evolutionists" can publish whatever books they want to.  They point you consistantly fail to recognize is that everything an "evolutionist" publishes is not science.

I wrote an article on how to build a deck.  That doesn't make me a carpenter.  

I also wrote an article on the results of a battle between the USS Enterprise and the Battlestar Galactica.  That doesn't mean what I do at work isn't science, just because I wrote about science fiction.

Science deals with evidence, falsifiability, and the peer-review of original research.

Is everything Dembski publishes religous?  Of course not.  But he has publicly said, on more than one occasion, that ID is based on his Judeo-Christian religion.  Of course, he never says that in his books about ID... which leads one to wonder why he changes his message for different audiences.

Do you ever ask yourself questions like that Floyd?  
Do you ever wonder why Dembski says some things to some people and other things to other people?  
Do you ever wonder what he did with the $20,000 he got for not showing up at Dover?  
Ever wonder why he stole a copyrighted work?  
Do you ever wonder why you have to play word games while we present paper after paper that shows you're wrong?  
Do you ever wonder why you talk on an insignificant forum instead of taking on science in the real world?

Date: 2010/04/21 08:23:10, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 21 2010,02:59)
If God or something created by God are the only options as to what done the design according to Dembski then how is ID not religious?

Of course, it must be the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible too.  Not just any god will work here... only that specific one.

Norse, Amerind, Greek, Roman, Hindu, etc. gods need not apply.

Date: 2010/04/22 11:12:04, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Since you keep bringing it up, Floyd.  How many nucleotides long does an RNA molecule have to be for it to be a functional catalyst?

Have you actually done any research into the recent advances promoting the RNA hypothesis?  Say since January?

Date: 2010/04/22 16:01:25, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Well... since

1) FL hasn't answered my questions after several days of asking and
2) He keeps bringing up the subject of RNA World and
3) I'm about to leave for the day and I happen to have the resources open

Here's your current research FL... you know the things you ought to investigate before making statements about which you know very little.

How did life begin
This article (which includes a link to the peer-reviewed paper it discusses), describes how evolutionary principles allowed researchers to generate the first self-replicating RNA system.  Please note (and this is FL's favorite objection) that they do not say this is how life began.  However, this proves that self-replicating systems can evolve and this proves that RNA can self-replicate.

Smallest RNAs with functions
This is the peer-reviewed research article that shows that RNA segements as small as 5 nucleotides can have catalytic functions.  Please note, that the actual catalyzing length is only 3 nucleotides long (the other two nucleotides can be anything).  The money quote:
Quote
To see this, consider that, to pick every possible RNA pentamer sequence from arbitrary pentamers (with probability 0.9975), one needs only accumulate 4.1 × 10-18 gm of RNA. To possess every tetramer (with probability 0.9975) from a pool of arbitrary tetramers, one would need 3.4 × 10-18 gm RNA. In a real polymerization, one would have a distribution of lengths; nonetheless, with only attograms of total RNA of distributed short lengths from some geochemical source, one would have not only our ribozyme, but every activity of comparable size.


my emphasis

And finally, just because it turned up in my search:
Origin of life
This article describes how long chain cyclic RNA molecules can be formed in nothing more exotic than warm water.  {Again, link to actual paper follows the article.}

So, FL, the RNA world hypothesis has (in these three articles) infinitely more support than ID does (well, effectively infinite, divide by zero problems and all that).

Date: 2010/04/23 09:09:06, Link
Author: OgreMkV
One thing that I continually notice (and bj, you're no exception) is that you keep using words and those words don't mean what you think they mean.

Let's play a little game (this in one I used to do in my classes, when I was a teacher and it helped a lot).

Let's put up some words and then everyone defines them in their own words without any reference materials.  Then, we compare the definitions to see who is in the majority, who is in the minority, who is confused, etc.  Finally, we compare those definitions that everyone wrote out with some reliable textbooks on the subject (meaning peer-reviewed and/or written by acknowledged experts on the subject in question).

Admittedly, this is a simplistic pedalogical exercise and not meant to be the end-all-be-all definitions of the words in question, but it is very valuable for finding some common misconceptions.  For example, if you include 'big bang' in your definition of evolution and no one else does, then it is much more probable that you have a misconception rather than everyone else.  [Note, that's not to slight you.  It is merely a fact based on what has been presented so far.]

The other part of this exercise, as I believe has been pointed out by Cubist, is that it is very difficult to 'pin' creationists (of any flavor) down on the definition of some common words.  Most of the words, as used in science, has a very different definition than used in the common vernacular ('theory' being a prime example).

Shall we play a game?
Let's start with:
1) Evidence
2) Evolution
3) Fact
4) Intelligent Design
5) Irreducible Complexity
6) Theory


A final note, you have made some very specific claims and have yet to back those claims up.  That's an argument by assertion and is a logical fallacy.  If you have a claim, then you'd better provide evidence for it.  Don't think that we won't bring this up until you provide the evidence of the claims or retract your claim.  The one that comes to mind is the many examples of irreducible complexity.

Date: 2010/04/23 14:49:08, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (JLT @ April 23 2010,14:22)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 23 2010,15:09)
Shall we play a game?
Let's start with:
1) Evidence
2) Evolution
3) Fact
4) Intelligent Design
5) Irreducible Complexity
6) Theory

yeah, I'll do mine too.

1) Evidence - a factual, unambiguous observation that supports a particular statement.

2) Evolution - a) The fact that organisms change over time  b) The theory that shows how organisms change over time (i.e. natural selection and common descent)

3) Fact - A statement that is universally true.

4) Intelligent Design - A proposition that an unknown 'designer' has interfered with life on this planet at some point in time and in some unknown fashion.

5) Irreducible Complexity - A proposition that certain structures cannot be dissasembled in any way and still have a structure that functions in the original fashion.  Also implies that the structure cannot come into being without an intelligent agent.

6) Theory - a statement about how the physical universe (or something in it) works that has significant evidentual and factual support.


BTW: I generally talk in analogies and this was very difficult to do this time.

Date: 2010/04/24 07:16:02, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (JLT @ April 24 2010,05:11)
Quote (nmgirl @ April 24 2010,06:51)
bjray, I think ogre's list of words to define is a good place to start understanding evolution.  I would add another thing:  TIME, verry long periods of time.

Another thing to add to the list:
 
Quote
1) Evidence
2) Evolution
3) Fact
4) Intelligent Design
5) Irreducible Complexity
6) Theory


7) Prediction

My definition: Something that follows logically from a hypothesis or theory and must necessarily be found/observed/true if the hypothesis or theory is true.

That's a concept that seems to be too difficult for most ID proponents to grasp.

That's excellent.  I keep forgetting about prediction.... well... because no ID 'theory' has ever had one.  (And don't go on about junk DNA, Gould predicted function for junk DNA before ID even existed.)

Anyone else want to chime in?

Date: 2010/04/24 07:16:50, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Blech, Joe's a wimp.  Can't even stand he heat, so he runs off.

At least AFDave had some stamina.

Date: 2010/04/24 15:27:28, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (bjray @ April 24 2010,13:44)
I am informed about the difference between evolution, abiogenesis and big bang.



While maybe all can be considered different “scientific enterprises”, they all have at least one thing in common: Evolutionary theory sprinkled about them. Furthermore, the notion that the big bang best fits current scientific evidence does not necessitate it being factual. (Here is another goal of mine; namely, to put back on your table the possibility of creation by a designer. You’re right, mentioning creation does imply a designer. That’s my point. I believe this world did not just materialize on its own, but was in fact created. This fits the best evidence I have. (Go ahead, get caught up on “what evidence”.) I’m trying not to explain the nth degree of everything, because (as I have said before) I cannot. Thus, I won’t try to explain nth degree details. Some explanation yes, but nitty gritty is not in my ability (or any one for that matter). Evolutionary explanations for such things: ie: big bang, commit a logical fallacy. Let me explain the best I know how.
The fallacious logic is as such: If you have A and B is a result of A, then anytime you have A, B must take place. In other words, if B, then we know A. However, what happens if there are multiple A’s. If A, or Aa, or Ab, or Ac….then B happens. If B happens, then we know one of the A’s had to have happened. However, without evidence of which A caused B, then how can we know which one of the A’s did something? I submit to you that you can’t. I didn’t make this up. It’s how logic works: philosophy class.
So how does this coincide with what I’m saying? Let’s put the pieces together. Evolutionists are trying, like other scientists (including creationists) to understand how the people/animals have come about in this world. Evolution argues for common descent. What has been discovered by scientists is that various animals have similar traits—observable fact. This is exactly what common descent would expect. So, if A (animals have common descent), then B (they have similar traits), therefore A (common descent must be true). The fallacy has been committed (we have B, then A). There can be the possibility of other A’s. Ie: common descent (evolution is one), creationism (a designer is another). See (http://tinyurl.com/2bmo6gf)

Cubists, thank you for the lesson in gaining other people’s respect. I understand. Have you heard of agreeing to disagree or the likes of varying approaches to things? Although, there is an answer, so one of us is right, the other wrong.

The explanation of morality (previously mentioned by me as self-preservation, albeit the latter is probably considered a subset of the former) by evolution is incomplete, that’s why I have a problem with it. I go back to Darwin, although that is apparently the wrong thing to do (as mentioned by many of you). Evolution attempts to explain that morality fits within its theory based on kin and tribal survival. Ie: survival of the fittest and having the best care for the weaker among kin or the tribe. Thus, the “gene of self-sacrifice” is carried on due to the fittest taking care of the weaker among kin or tribe. Good, great, that may help explain some parts of morality (also..where’s the this gene of self-sacrifice?). But what about altruism and humans treating every human right, even if they know it cannot be reciprocated? Take wars for example. Almost every war has had some backlash of how a person’s own nation treated the other. Why is this? From an evolutionary perspective, why care about another. Because if self-preservation is a motive, is it really genuine care at all?

Cubists, your digression on why “real” scientists reject Creationism is troubling at best. Again, you continue to assert that that evolutionary thinking is the end all, explain all. I am open to understanding evolutionary process and thinking. I’ve been reading what you and others post. (Sorry I was looking for multiple answers to the questions I pose, which is why I repeated myself.)

All right, till next time.

P.s. J-Dogg, I am thankful for the responses I have gotten.

Quote
I am informed about the difference between evolution, abiogenesis and big bang.


Obviously, not enough scientific versions of these.

Quote

While maybe all can be considered different “scientific enterprises”, they all have at least one thing in common: evolutionary theory sprinkled about them.


Find a single reference that says this.  As has been explained to you, the word 'evolution' can be used to describe anything that changes.  Heck, Ford has used 'evolution' to describe the latest Mustang.

[QUOTE}
Furthermore, the notion that the big bang best fits current scientific evidence does not necessitate it being factual. [/QUOTE]

But it does imply that it is more likely to have happened that way than the Incan creation myth.

Quote

(Here is another goal of mine; namely, to put back on your table the possibility of creation by a designer. You’re right, mentioning creation does imply a designer. That’s my point. I believe this world did not just materialize on its own, but was in fact created.


That is the key word.  You believe therefore you don't bother to look further.  You ignore any evidence that conflicts with your belief and anyone who presents evidence otherwise is trying to disrupt your belief system.  

Quote

This fits the best evidence I have. (Go ahead, get caught up on “what evidence”.)


Then I suggest you get a new source of evidence, because your current source sucks.  I mean that literally.  If you believe that the evidence that 150 years of scientific research into Astronomy, Cosmology, and Physics best matches a designer, then you are deluded and quite possibly stupid.  No offense, but you have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote

I’m trying not to explain the nth degree of everything, because (as I have said before) I cannot. Thus, I won’t try to explain nth degree details. Some explanation yes, but nitty gritty is not in my ability (or any one for that matter).


Then why are you trying to convince people whose job IS the nitty gritty that they are wrong?  Honestly, you're talking to people here who have been studying this for longer than you've been alive (assuming you're a college student).  I average two books in Biology per year, 1 in Physics, 1 in Astronomy, and 1 or 2 in some technology a year... and I've been doing this for over 20 years.  And I'm not a professional scientist.  Just an interested amateur.  If you can't keep up with that, then don't freaking bother.

Quote

Evolutionary explanations for such things: ie: big bang, commit a logical fallacy. Let me explain the best I know how.


Here's your logical fallacy: If A=B and C=D, then if A is wrong, then D must be wrong.

Quote

The fallacious logic is as such: If you have A and B is a result of A, then anytime you have A, B must take place. In other words, if B, then we know A. However, what happens if there are multiple A’s. If A, or Aa, or Ab, or Ac….then B happens. If B happens, then we know one of the A’s had to have happened. However, without evidence of which A caused B, then how can we know which one of the A’s did something? I submit to you that you can’t. I didn’t make this up. It’s how logic works: philosophy class.


Let's try this:  If a cop find a man standing over a dead man.  The living man has a knife.  The dead man has 12 stab wounds in him.  The knife is bloody.  The body is still warm.  The living man has blood splatters all over him and is presently eating the dead man's liver.

According to you, because we didn't see it happening the living man should not be convicted of murder.

Quote

So how does this coincide with what I’m saying? Let’s put the pieces together. Evolutionists are trying, like other scientists (including creationists) to understand how the people/animals have come about in this world. Evolution argues for common descent. What has been discovered by scientists is that various animals have similar traits—observable fact. This is exactly what common descent would expect. So, if A (animals have common descent), then B (they have similar traits), therefore A (common descent must be true). The fallacy has been committed (we have B, then A). There can be the possibility of other A’s. Ie: common descent (evolution is one), creationism (a designer is another). See (http://tinyurl.com/2bmo6gf)


Umm.. that's not how it works.  That's how 'creation science' works.  Assume what you're trying to prove.

Here's how science works.  Two organisms look alike (observation).  Maybe the two organisms are related (hypothesis).  The two organisms are not related (null hypothesis).  If the two organisms are related, then many things about them will be similar (experiment).  Scientist then investigates anatomy, morphology, protein similarities, DNA/gene sequences, reproductive ability, fossil record of both organisms, etc.  If all of these things show that the two organisms are closely related, then the hypothesis is supported.  

That's how it works.  It will never be 'proven'.

Quote

Cubists, thank you for the lesson in gaining other people’s respect. I understand. Have you heard of agreeing to disagree or the likes of varying approaches to things? Although, there is an answer, so one of us is right, the other wrong.


I will happily agree to disagree... if you and your side (i.e. ID) quit influencing school boards to force the teaching of ID and the 'weaknesses' of evolution.

Any competent science teacher will explain all of science positive and negative.  There is no reason to single out evolution for special treatment.

Maybe, when ID has 150 years of evidential support behind it, then it will be treated as evolution is in schools.  However, year 1 hasn't started yet, because no one has any evidence for ID.

Quote

The explanation of morality (previously mentioned by me as self-preservation, albeit the latter is probably considered a subset of the former) by evolution is incomplete, that’s why I have a problem with it. I go back to Darwin, although that is apparently the wrong thing to do (as mentioned by many of you). Evolution attempts to explain that morality fits within its theory based on kin and tribal survival. Ie: survival of the fittest and having the best care for the weaker among kin or the tribe. Thus, the “gene of self-sacrifice” is carried on due to the fittest taking care of the weaker among kin or tribe. Good, great, that may help explain some parts of morality (also..where’s the this gene of self-sacrifice?). But what about altruism and humans treating every human right, even if they know it cannot be reciprocated? Take wars for example. Almost every war has had some backlash of how a person’s own nation treated the other. Why is this? From an evolutionary perspective, why care about another. Because if self-preservation is a motive, is it really genuine care at all?


Evidence against evolution is not evidence for ID.

Oh BTW:
Scientists find evidence of the evolution of morality in monkeys

The absence of reward induces inequity aversion in dogs

Monkeys show sense of fairness

Food Sharingin Vampire Bats

These are just the links from Wiki.  There's a fair bit of research into the evolution of 'morality'.  I suggest you study up on things before making statements regarding them.

Quote

Cubists, your digression on why “real” scientists reject Creationism is troubling at best. Again, you continue to assert that that evolutionary thinking is the end all, explain all. I am open to understanding evolutionary process and thinking. I’ve been reading what you and others post. (Sorry I was looking for multiple answers to the questions I pose, which is why I repeated myself.)

All right, till next time.

P.s. J-Dogg, I am thankful for the responses I have gotten.


No one says that evolution is the end-all-be-all of biology.  There are many significant questions remaining to be answered even in evolutionary theory.  However, real scientists look for answers.  They don't say "Well, I don't know how this works, therefore no one will ever understand it, therefore God (excuse me, a designer) did it."

Since you won't answer questions about evidence (you admit that you have none), how about answering this question:

Is it OK to lie and steal if it supports your religion (or other moral believe system)?

Date: 2010/04/24 15:57:36, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (bjray @ April 24 2010,15:39)
Explain to me how I just presented a straw man argument. I presented information that evolutionists assert. Where did I distort the facts? Evolution advocates common descent. It advocates similar traits among species.


Dr. GH. Interesting stuff you post. It would appear my knowledge of speciation (if you will) and the parapatric mode is very limited. From what I do know, at a small glance, it seems that it is evolution in a science lab, not real life. ie: Let me set the exact conditions and variables, then we get what we want (Again, I'll have to check out your sources for myself.) For some reason, I feel like you had all of that pre-typed sitting in a "dusty" word document, waiting to pull it out and post in a forum discussion. Am I right? :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

Read this.  Then read all the references and all the further reading.

Then come talk to us about common descent.

Date: 2010/04/24 16:09:21, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I'm going to insert a prediction regarding our friend BJ here, most likely he won't check this thread.

I predict that his next post after today will contain a 'refutation' of Dr. GH's observations of speciation by saying that these are just evidence of microevolution because they are the same 'kind'  i.e. a flower didn't evolve into a allosaurus... therefore that's not evolution.

Date: 2010/04/24 18:53:48, Link
Author: OgreMkV
BJ, rest assured, you do not want to get into a debate about the bible as evidence of morality.  If you do, then I expect you to sell me your daughter(s).  I'll give you a good price.

As others have pointed out, someone interested in learning would at least read the wiki entry for something.  Then, if something strikes their interest move on from there.

You obviously have not bothered to learn about carbon dating or about ID.  Therefore (using the evidence so far) that you are parroting dead arguments.  You're just another example of someone who is really confused about how the real world works.

Let me ask you this (although I doubt you will answer any questions since you haven't so far):  Why is your belief system based on the bible?

Date: 2010/04/24 19:35:44, Link
Author: OgreMkV
For BJ's benefit about the papers I mentioned (you did read them right?), behavior is also a factor in evolution and affected by evolution.

If you're a wolf cub and constantly picking fights with bigger wolves than you, guess what.  You'll be killed long before you get a chance to pass that behavior on to your offspring.  If you are submissive to bigger wolves than you, then you will likely survive until you are the bigger wolf, then you can replace the alpha male... meaning that your cubs will tend to be submissive to bigger wolves until they are big enough.

It's called natural selection.  Is there a gene for behavior... depends.  

Here's a recent blog that's a good summary of a very old paper ('62 I believe, the paper is available on the internet, it's just on my work laptop.)  Lovebirds: Nature or Nurture

Some behaviors are innate, that means that there is a gene for them.  

I suspect (and this is my opinion) that many 'behaviors' that exist in modern humans have their roots in genes that have been co-opted for other purposes (much like most of evolutionary traits).  For example, our deepest ancestors must have been pretty good at pattern recognition (to survive with stealthy leopards stalking them).  We've co-opted that trait for a variety of things now.  For example, written language.  Again, this is just idle speculation and something I'm interested in.

So, yes, behaviors can be either genetic or learned and both can influence the evolution of the species.

Date: 2010/04/25 10:42:13, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 25 2010,09:21)
Quote (bjray @ April 24 2010,14:44)
Name for me anything that you (or anyone) has ever seen actually evolve from one species to another? (Now you say, we haven't, it takes millions/billions of years for anything to evolve.)

Prediction: when BJ sees the observed instances of speciation, he'll protest that those are examples of changes within a "kind," and not one "kind" changing into another before our eyes.

heh, I made this same prediction on the bathroom wall... but I also predicted it would take BJ a day or so to find that 'refutation' of the speciation events.

Ah well...

Date: 2010/04/25 15:07:25, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Don't forget ignoring any and all questions asked, even if they are simple yes/no answers.

Date: 2010/04/25 17:31:02, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Let's put it this way:

BJ, do you have anything for us other than vague references to things evolution can't do, a misunderstanding of science (and the bible), and a personal belief system that is offended that you might be related to monkeys?

Date: 2010/04/25 20:55:24, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Texas Teach @ April 25 2010,20:09)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 25 2010,17:31)
Let's put it this way:

BJ, do you have anything for us other than vague references to things evolution can't do, a misunderstanding of science (and the bible), and a personal belief system that is offended that you might be related to monkeys?

Yes, BJ has the knowledge gained in a few credit hours of introductory philosophy.  Quake with fear, evilutionists!

No no, the '4' in the 4483 usually means it's a senior level class.  Therefore, he's smarter than every scientist in the world (except for Dr. Dr.).

Date: 2010/04/26 08:23:33, Link
Author: OgreMkV
BJ, there may be something that you aren't quite clear on.

This is science, not philosophy, not religion, not even sociology.  Evolution, cosmology, physics and the like are science.  The rules are very different.  Every statement you say in regards to these subjects are expected to have significant evidential support.

If you want to talk about science, then you must play by science rules.  That's something that Behe, Dembski, and Meyer just don't get.  They think that they can change what science is and that will allow ID to be taught in schools.  They continually fail to do so.

You are the one bucking 150 years of scientific evidence.  And all you can do is complain about how we expect evidence.  

You are the one who has made at least 3 very bold claims.  And when asked to show evidence that supports them, you ignore those questions.

In fact, I've asked you a dozen or so questions.  And you have ignored every one of them.

I was a science teacher until recently.  I provided a pedalogical tool to help you begin to learn.  And you ignored it, to complain about how people think you're ignorant.

Go back and read (hah!) some of the other 'debate' threads.  Floyd Lee, AFDave, JoeG all have some threads on this board and they are long and detailed.  I've read them, all the way through.  I suggest you do so as well.  It might give you a better understanding of what we go through.  

You may think that this is all new and you think your arguments are great.  They are not new.  I've been doing this for almost 20 years and I haven't heard anything new in quite a while.  Some of the guys on this board have been doing this even longer.

A last appeal for education

BJ, you are the only one that can change your ignorance... if you want to.

Date: 2010/04/26 09:54:06, Link
Author: OgreMkV
While I agree in principle, the question is what to ask.  He's already admitted that he doesn't know anything about ID.  He doesn't really know anything about science.

Do we go philosophical/theological?

Date: 2010/04/26 10:29:52, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Works for me...

what is a species?

Date: 2010/04/26 11:05:16, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 26 2010,10:29)

BJ, I'd like to point something else out.  Personally, I like to debate.  But I like the debate to be a valuable learning experience for both sides.  

For example, in a recent debate on another forum, we had quite the discussion on whether wind power is the future of energy.  I could have easily taken either side, but I happen to use wind energy so I took that side.  

I learned quite a bit and my research further supported my contention that wind energy is going to be a huge part of the future energy of the world.

On the other hand, when we get to debates like this about evolution and ID, it normally breaks down to a very common sequence (it has been referenced on this thread already).  That sequence is annoying because one side isn't doing any learning (pro-ID) and has nothing to teach (also pro-ID).  

So all we get out of it is the faint hope that the debater will actually learn something and that any lurkers will get the benefit of knowing that the pro-ID arguments are junk.

I would really suggest you reread this entire thread as an uninterested observer and just look at the various responses both sides give to questions.

Date: 2010/04/27 08:19:50, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 27 2010,08:13)
Posted by Joe G this morning on UnintelligentReasoning

   
Quote
Comment Moderation Enabled

However this is going to become a lonely blog because only on-topic comments- comments that demonstrate an understanding of what I post or comments that support the anti-ID position will be allowed


LOL!  Poor little Joey Gallien is tired of being picked on by the mean evos, so he's taking his ball and going home.  :D  :D  :D

So you have to believe that hail and water are made of two different compounds to post?  

I'll pass, but thanks for asking.

Date: 2010/04/27 20:19:31, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Reminds me of the guy who discovered bucky balls.  He found a stable 60 carbon structure (mass spec) and went to the math department to ask if they knew of a stable structure with 60 vertices and no more than 4 links and no less than 2 links to each vertex.

A few days later the math department chair called him back and said, "You're kidding right?  It's a damn soccer ball!  No quit bugging us."

I don't know if it actually happened that way, but it's pretty funny.

Date: 2010/04/28 08:48:00, Link
Author: OgreMkV
+1 for POTW (and the month and the year)

Date: 2010/04/29 08:25:23, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Two good ones ripe to beat IDistsists over the head with:

Alaskan Megaflood - unfortunately for YECs it was 17,000 years ago and caused by a lake breaking through an ice dam.  But still, 1400 cubic km of water is a lot... even if it didn't rain.

How mathematics and evolution should work together - "Building on classical competition models for single traits, they designed their mathematical theory to gauge the evolutionary impact of multiple traits in concert, and found that adding this layer of complexity significantly lowered the threshold for the maintenance of diversity and the evolution of new species."


Both are layman articles with links to the original research papers.

Date: 2010/04/30 09:19:30, Link
Author: OgreMkV
And he's supposed to be a Christian?

Honestly, I can't see why anyone would be a IDist without being a Christian, so is he?

What a little wimp, too scared to say anything that he can't control.

Oh, and his 'insults' are almost as weak as his arguement supporting ID.

Date: 2010/05/01 07:56:42, Link
Author: OgreMkV
and show your work and why it works...

Date: 2010/05/14 08:52:33, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I skimmed the abstract of the 'article' by Axe.  It's just a rehash of "I can't see how it happened that way".  And with commentary from Abel, you know it's got to be... ummm... nevermind.

From what I've seen this is just a small circle jerk.  

I'd love to see the internet statistics for their website.  I'd be willing to bet that 90% of their incoming links are from websites like this.

Date: 2010/05/21 14:20:54, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (ppb @ May 21 2010,12:33)
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 21 2010,13:07)
Quote
He's asking me out on a date? How sweet.


Ask him if he's a top or a bottom.

Quark, that is.

He's definitely no charm.

But he is strange.

Date: 2010/06/21 07:46:48, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Oh boy.  I can hear the creationist yelling "victory" over this one.

Canyon carved in just three days

"ScienceDaily (June 20, 2010) — In the summer of 2002, a week of heavy rains in Central Texas caused Canyon Lake -- the reservoir of the Canyon Dam -- to flood over its spillway and down the Guadalupe River Valley in a planned diversion to save the dam from catastrophic failure. The flood, which continued for six weeks, stripped the valley of mesquite, oak trees, and soil; destroyed a bridge; and plucked meter-wide boulders from the ground. And, in a remarkable demonstration of the power of raging waters, the flood excavated a 2.2-kilometer-long, 7-meter-deep canyon in the bedrock."

Michael P. Lamb, Mark A. Fonstad. Rapid formation of a modern bedrock canyon by a single flood event. Nature Geoscience, 2010; DOI: 10.1038/ngeo894

Date: 2010/06/22 18:22:22, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Happy Birthday.

Your birthday present is me not singing happy birthday.

Date: 2010/07/05 22:20:32, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 05 2010,14:14)
Home improvements nearly done..





Gorgeous.  When's the opening party?   We'll be there...

Date: 2010/07/06 11:10:30, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Not sure where to put this, but I've a question about ID.

I'm reading Behe's Dover testimony and I'm noticing that they are spending a lot of time on the structure of the flagellum.  Whether it really is a type III secretory system or how the designer acted to build the thing blah blah blah.

I guess the question is: What did the designer actually design?  Did he design the structure or the DNA code for the structure?

I can build a pretty complicated object (especially with LEGOs), but without a plan, no one could recreate it.  Even if it was an organism, then if the organism reproduced, it couldn't make another flagellum without the plan.

So all of Behe's arguements about the structure are moot because (among other reasons) the structure doesn't matter.  It's the DNA that matters.  So did the designer design the DNA and let nature take it's course or was the structure itself designed.

I know this isn't making a lot of sense and I know that the ID people don't have a clue.  I'm just trying to see if there's another effective arguement against IC here.

thoughts?

Date: 2010/07/06 20:44:39, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (didymos @ July 06 2010,15:25)
Quote (Henry J @ July 06 2010,10:22)
     
Quote
I know this isn't making a lot of sense and I know that the ID people don't have a clue.  I'm just trying to see if there's another effective arguement against IC here.

thoughts?

I recall somebody pointing out that IC (at least as it was first defined) is predicted by evolution, and so was not an argument against it in the first place.

From Muller's 1918 paper (1918! That Behe, I tells ya: cutting edge, man.  Cut-ting edge):

     
Quote
Most present-day animals are the result of a long process of evolution, in which at least thousands of mutations must have taken place. Each new mutant in turn must have derived its survival value from the effect which it produced upon the "reaction system” that had been brought into being by the many previously formed factors in cooperation; thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former. It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to disturb fatally the whole machinery; for this reason we should expect very many, if not most, mutations to result in lethal factors, and of the rest, the majority should be “semi-lethal” or at least disadvantageous in the struggle for life, and likely to set wrong any delicately balanced system, such as the reproductive system.


He then mentions all this had actually first occurred to him back in 1912.  What's interesting is that you can tell that, despite the formal language, he found it rather frustrating that he couldn't really test the idea properly (or, really, at all) at that time, and that even in 1918 it was still a pain in the ass to perform the kind of experiments he wanted to. Oh, and, he was still at it in 19-fucking-38! It's a review, but still: he was actually actively pursuing the idea.

Then you have Behetard, with resources Muller probably would have killed for, who often can't even be bothered to look shit up on the google, much less read actual scientific papers, much, much, much, much less be bothered to do an experiment.  Fuck that noise! Man's got books to sell, baby. And stupid hats to buy:


Is that Behe?  Man, he needs to see a dentist...

Date: 2010/07/12 12:45:27, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Standards Framework for K-12 Science - Public Comments Open

This link takes you to a proposed draft document for national level science standards.  The document is open for public comment from now until August 2nd.

A survey will be posted in a few days.

I would appreciate any with strong interest and/or training in science or education reading this (long) document and making any comments for improvement that you can find.

Wes, might it be possible to post this to the PT main page?

Thanks

Date: 2010/07/14 22:31:02, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 14 2010,09:22)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ July 14 2010,03:37)
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 14 2010,01:32)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFwgblszf6s

WTF?!?

Ok, the "Evil Owl" is pretty disturbing...

Not evil! It is merely trying to disguise itself as a dead snag or stick. The squinty eyes are a nice touch.

BTW, I've finally been able to ID this owl. It is the Southern White-faced Owl (Ptilopsis granti), native to the southern half of Africa.

Thank you, that's been buggin the heck out me for weeks.

Date: 2010/07/16 10:28:31, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Speaking as a teacher, I have noticed a definite trend within the schools I taught at.

There is a (for lack of a better word) divide forming.  On one side you've got a small group of students with some real knowledge, skills, and potentional in regards to STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics).  On the other side, there is a large number of students for whom STEM is out of reach.  

By "out of reach" I mean, the students don't have the knowledge and skills that they should have for the course or grade they are in.*  They also don't have any interest in STEM because of a variety of factors, but many come from previous instruction by poor quality teachers.

Of course, socio-economic issues are a big part of this as well (though they can afford $250 Nike shoes and 3 X-boxes, but they are still on the school lunch program).

Unfortunately, because everything in our future revolves around science, these kids (who will grow up to be a large block of voters) will not understand the issues or how to deal with them.

In that regard, I think that, yes, we are losing the battle for science.




* My favorite example was a student who had been placed in Chemistry I who was in his third year of developmental math (i.e. not yet up to 8th grade math level).

Date: 2010/07/16 13:01:35, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (fnxtr @ July 16 2010,12:51)
I wonder if that's a case of society outpacing the abilities of its members.  

As the world becomes more complex and technology-dependent, we need more individuals capable of understanding it, but the average kid hasn't become any smarter, or any more motivated to "do science", than they were in 1950.  

The small Canadian town I grew up in in the 70's was still 80% lugnuts and anti-learning.  

Some kids get the message that post-secondary education is vital these days, but they get it too late, or don't realize just how much <i>work</i> it can be.

The guy who does Dilbert (I forget his name) wrote a book and included something along these lines.

He said that when humans level of technology was limited to the spear, we could handle that.  Pointy end forward, no big deal.  But, relatively suddenly, we have cell phones, the iPhone/Android debate, space shuttles, and 50,000 kinds of plastics.

The human brain just can't keep up, even the smartest in our society are becoming dumber and dumber.  Sure they may be experts in quantum chromodynamics, but I bet they can't kill a leopard with a spear.

Date: 2010/07/18 08:05:32, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Skeptic, on most of your points, I agree totally.

However, there is one major point that I think you may not have considered.  Those 90% of the students that don't have critical thinking skills and no/little interest in learning will dominate the political landscape when they get to voting age.

At that point, we get people like McLeroy on the Texas School Board that both don't have any thinking skills AND are in a position to harm further education efforts.

You're right, there is no 'battle for science' in the sense that science will go away.  But there is a battle for the education of science and the US is in trouble.

Date: 2010/07/18 11:29:04, Link
Author: OgreMkV
ike, in terms of available education for everyone, I think the US wins hands down.  On the other hand, I think more US students don't appreciate the opportunity and waste it.

I once had a great discussion of how phosphors on TV screens worked (before most TVs were LCD and plasma) and after this detailed discussion, one of my students answered the end of the day pop quiz with "ghosts cause TVs to sometimes glow at night".

sigh...

Date: 2010/07/19 08:52:28, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Where do you teach Ike?  We may be moving in a year or so and I want my kid in classes like that.

Date: 2010/08/01 00:39:35, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Henry J @ July 31 2010,23:21)
He seems to be confusing a set with the union of the sets that happen to be elements of that set. I don't know if it's even possible for a non-null set to be equal to the union of all its member sets (using the axioms that are more or less standard for set theory, that is).

Henry

Maybe Joe just uses different axioms.

He probably thinks an axiom is the spaceship from Wall-E

Date: 2010/08/20 18:14:00, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Poodle.  These guys just aren't any fun any more.  I promise to be nice as long as he answers questions.

Date: 2010/08/26 16:53:46, Link
Author: OgreMkV
You guys are awesome.   I'm keeping those pictures!

For my birfday, I want Dembski to visit ATBC.

Date: 2010/08/27 19:34:20, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Texas Teach @ Aug. 26 2010,19:57)
I sent you a cool front for your birthday.  Did you get it?

The cool front was awesome.  It dropped to 98 degrees during the day.  Fantastic!

Date: 2010/08/27 19:36:05, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (fnxtr @ Aug. 27 2010,10:51)
Behold Lego Tarkus!



Think you can take him, OgreMkIV?

Looks like the bastard child of an armadillo and an AT-AT.  I've got 6 variable yield short range tac-nukes... bring it.

Date: 2010/08/27 19:38:52, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 27 2010,14:21)
HB, and eat more caek!

Boy, you guys are good.  I wrote an item today about the relationship between giant pandas, red pandas and a variety of other carnivores.  

Did you know red pandas are more closely related to skunks, raccoons, and seals and walruses than they are to any bears?

Date: 2010/08/27 19:41:53, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 24 2010,09:48)
Happy trip around the sun, blipster. And may you never look like this!

Where the F*** do you find this stuff??  No, wait, I don't want to know...

Date: 2010/08/27 19:43:14, Link
Author: OgreMkV
This may get me banned, but Kylie has a new album out.

Yes, I'm addicted to euro-dance.

Date: 2010/08/28 09:18:29, Link
Author: OgreMkV
It's the official birthday weekend... let the hedonism begin.  I think I'll have syrup with my oatcakes instead of yogurt this morning!

Kat, the item isn't online, but the reference article is here: Whence the Red Panda, Flynn et. al.

Date: 2010/08/28 14:43:53, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (fnxtr @ Aug. 28 2010,13:35)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 28 2010,07:18)
It's the official birthday weekend... let the hedonism begin.  I think I'll have syrup with my oatcakes instead of yogurt this morning!

Kat, the item isn't online, but the reference article is here: Whence the Red Panda, Flynn et. al.

Kewl.

So they just ended up gettting called "pandas" in the first place because of locale and superficial resemblence?

Heh. So our raccoons could have been "lesser brown bears".

I guess red panda sounds better than red skunk-like critter.

Date: 2010/09/06 22:06:37, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Where's the intelligent design in this?  When did the intelligent designer act?  

This is a novel new structure that has not existed before.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news....th-eggs

Some members of the species of yellow-bellied three-toed skink has developed a placenta-like structure and is giving birth to live young rather than laying eggs as the rest of the species does.

This is so cool.

Date: 2010/09/14 08:23:34, Link
Author: OgreMkV
1) The entire book is not free on Google books.  I hit the veiwing limit after about 9 pages.

2) I still didn't see a calculation for anything regarding information.

3) There was no cite list (at least in the ToC or on the pages I could view).

sigh...

Date: 2010/09/17 12:07:54, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (JLT @ Sep. 17 2010,12:05)
Breaking News: Richard Dawkins held over papal terror alert  :)

That just about freaked me out.  I was all prepared for scathing posts and the like...

Just wrong.

Date: 2010/09/22 17:36:20, Link
Author: OgreMkV
My understanding is that he is basically saying, "Humanity is in a privileged frame of reference and that the stars provided the light from their current position to Earth in zero time."

sigh...

in other words something supernatural happened.

Date: 2010/09/23 08:07:35, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Hmmm... for some reason, all my science feeds missed the 4 new pieces of evidence against evolution.  Weird.

Date: 2010/09/28 22:14:30, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 28 2010,21:04)
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 28 2010,11:11)
I can sympathize with agnostics, but atheists?  IMHO, the only reason one is an atheist is because of personal issues which can vary immensely from person to person.

For this atheist, it's the same personal issues that lead me to not believe in UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster and the theory of Atlantis.

Actually, I think I agree.  In my experience, the reasons for atheism come down to one of two things.

1) No indoctrination as a child (i.e. children of atheists)

2) Indoctrination as a child that just didn't take (i.e. the child figured out what a sham religion actually is)

Date: 2010/09/30 07:55:33, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Has anyone started a thread for the British version of the DI, with Behe appearing?

Date: 2010/10/08 17:48:28, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I've already asked the organizers if they approved of Behe saying that Astrology is science.

Shockingly, I haven't received an answer.

Date: 2010/10/28 13:26:46, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Happy Birthday.

As we speak, I am hosting a brownie in your name.

Date: 2010/10/31 11:18:51, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I'm loathe to do this, but I'd like to try to get a nitwit off the bathroom wall at PT and get him over here.

Is it OK if I make a thread for the nutburger?

Date: 2010/10/31 14:56:27, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Yeah, that's the nitwit.  He's deep in the tard.  Thinks Meyer is God's gift to Biology (literally).

Date: 2010/10/31 15:28:44, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Badger3k @ Oct. 31 2010,15:10)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2010,14:56)
Yeah, that's the nitwit.  He's deep in the tard.  Thinks Meyer is God's gift to Biology (literally).

Please, please get a thread for him.  I did a quick skim but couldn't see who you might refer to, but I guess I missed him.  Sounds like fun.  I'll even bring popcorn!

OK, I can't start a new thread.

If someone would start it for me, I'll post the link on the PT bathroom wall.

Thanks
Ogre.

Badger... read the PT bathroom wall start at about 200 or so.  Yep, this clown's been going for 200 pages.

To bad he's actually dumber than AFDave and has no knowledge of actual science.  He's just as hard headed though.

Date: 2010/10/31 16:27:48, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (didymos @ Oct. 31 2010,16:06)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2010,13:28)
OK, I can't start a new thread.

If someone would start it for me, I'll post the link on the PT bathroom wall.

Here you goeth:

The "I Believe In God" Thread

Think he'll manage to figure out the registration process?  I have my doubts.  Oh, yeah, I'm off to PT to post it there too.

Much appreciation.

Date: 2010/10/31 16:39:32, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Well, let's see where we are now.

My current discussion with IBIG is in regards to the quote-mine featured on PT here: Dembski vs. Evo-Devo

IBIG maintains that this is a correct representation of the discovery article author's conclusion.

I maintain that it is (and remains since 2005) a quote-mine because it does not accurately represent the author of the original article.  If effect, it lies about what Elizabeth Pennisi said in her Science article.

Furthermore, I quote Psalms where it says, "There is no God." as an example of a quote-mine that is exactly the same as the discovery article.

Both quotes are taken out of context and result in a misrepresentation of the intent of the original author.

IBIG maintains that the discovery quote is legitimate, but my quote is a lie and that I'm a liar.  

So, IBIG, please explain why my quote-mine of the Bible is wrong, while the discovery article quote-mine is OK.

Over to you.

Date: 2010/10/31 20:36:50, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (mplavcan @ Oct. 31 2010,20:15)
He has stamina, and yet he STILL hasn't answered a single question. But I know enough people who think like he does to make the whole thread an illustration of why creationism persists.

I agree.  It's a fascinating subject.

They twist things so much and learn just enough to make uninformed statements.

Date: 2010/10/31 21:20:51, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Badger3k @ Oct. 31 2010,20:59)
You guys weren't kidding.  Wow.  At least, from what I've read or skimmed so far, he hasn't started posting YouTube videos.

You mean recently?

That was his favorite tactic.  He'd disappear for two or three days when we really had him nailed to a tree (as it were), then reappear, post a totally unrelated youtube link and ask "So what about this?"

At which point, half of the group would fisk the hell out of the video, while the other half kept asking him about the previous discussion topic.

Date: 2010/10/31 21:55:12, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (mplavcan @ Oct. 31 2010,21:46)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2010,21:20)
Quote (Badger3k @ Oct. 31 2010,20:59)
You guys weren't kidding.  Wow.  At least, from what I've read or skimmed so far, he hasn't started posting YouTube videos.

You mean recently?

That was his favorite tactic.  He'd disappear for two or three days when we really had him nailed to a tree (as it were), then reappear, post a totally unrelated youtube link and ask "So what about this?"

At which point, half of the group would fisk the hell out of the video, while the other half kept asking him about the previous discussion topic.

I doubt he will join this discussion. Assuming that he isn't a troll, and is sincere, then this forum is not public enough for him. He acts like a street preacher, and if he is real, probably thinks that he is witnessing and will turn souls to Christ. He is not interested in debate or truth -- only casting doubt and spreading the Gospel. Notice how every 20 pages or so he would revert to quoting scriptures?

If so, then he is the WORST witness for any religion I've ever heard of in my life.

Date: 2010/11/01 07:01:32, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (prong_hunter @ Nov. 01 2010,06:06)
Well, he really showed them on Panda's Thumb. Here's what IBIG said Oct. 31st 2010:
"No you are wrong, All along I have not just questioned whether there are moral absolutes, but I have also questions whether there are absolutes of any kind. It was said that there were no absolutes, which I clearly demonstrated was absurd, because if that were true then you could not state that there are no absolutes. If one is to state that there are no absolutes, then one would be making an absolute statement that there are no absolutes. So, evidently here you all only think there is one form of absolute, and that is that there is no absolutes:)"

"Go back and read my previous posts, because I clearly demonstrated that there are mathematic absolutes, and there clearly are moral absolutes also, I answered that. You again like to twist the truth to agree with you naturalistic view that there are no absolutes, but that is irrational. You are irrational!"

How can any one argue against 'logic' like that?

I once tried to argue with logic like that... then I gave up and married her.  She keeps the logic to a minimum though.

Arguing with IBIG is like arguing with a two-day old tuna sandwich.  You can scream all you want, it's still gonna stink.

I'll post my list of unanswered (mostly) questions in a bit.





Date: 2010/11/01 08:34:46, Link
Author: OgreMkV
OK, my questions for IBIG... which I'm sure he'll get to as soon as he registers.

Do organisms produce more offspring than can possibly survive?
What is life? (define, not examples)
Are those books previously mentioned true historical fact?
Why did you not discuss the echidna?
Why do you refuse an honest offer to learn about all the things you don’t understand?
Why did you steal works from other authors and not give them credit?
How long is the shortest RNA strand that acts as a functional catalyst for biochemical
reactions?
What is an opsin and why does it demolish your claim of no common descent?
Do you own and have you read the MIT book you linked to?
Do you own and have you read the Reese, Campbell Biology 5th Edition?
Why won’t you answer these questions?
Even if you disprove evolution, how does that help whatever your hypothesis?
Why do pro-science sites allow you to babble on, while pro-creationist sites do not allow
any scientists to comment?
Do you really think your comments here are original in anyway?
can you explain why I might think sympatric speciation is an example of evolution without mutation
Who wrote the Gospel According to John?
Why won’t you show that Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies of the messiah?
What evidence would convince you that common ancestry is correct.
Which group, AiG or the DI, is lying and why aren’t you taking them to task for “lying for Jesus”?”
What mechanism activates front-loaded genetics?
What, exactly, is the problem with mutation rates (include sources for your information)?
Do you believe in the flood of the Bible?
Do you take all the anti-biotics like the doctor tells you to?
(From DS)Why do dolphins have five digits early in development if they do not have five digits as adults?
(From DS) Why do dolphin embryos start out with the nostril on the front of the head if it is positioned on the top of the head in the adult?
(From DS) Why do dolphin embryos have pharyngeal gill pouches if they lack gills as adults?
(From DS) Why do dolphin embryos start to develop hind limbs if they do not have hind limbs as adults?
(From DS) Why do horse embryos have five digits if they have only one as adults?
(From DS) Why are there fossils intermediate between apes and humans?
(From DS) How old is the earth? How do you know?
(From DS) Why is there a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity with Cetacea deeply nested within Artiodactyla? (Hint: common design is not the answer).
(From DS) Why is there a nested hierarch of SINE insertions with Cetacea deeply nested within Artiodactyla, the exact same relationship revealed by the developmental and other genetic data? (Hint: common design is not the answer).
(From DS) Why are human and chimp chromosomes nearly identical gene for gene and band for band, including the extra centromeric and telomeric sequences found in human chromosome two? (Hint: common design is not the answer).
(From DS) Why is there a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity for primates with humans most closely related to chimps? Why is this pattern consistent in both nuclear and mitochondrial genes and also consistent with the fossil evidence and the chromosome banding data?

IBIG’s Answers*
I freely admit that IBIG has (kinda) answered some of these, but I think it's best we start over (it was only 2 questions) and then we can move forward.  




Selected Quotes from IBIG that he should be held to

 
Quote

The evidence is not the prophecy of the old testament, but the precise fulfillment of that prophecy, these were not little vague prophecies. This is evidence that God did what He said that he would do. Evidence  that He does exist!
my emphasis


 
Quote

I’ll answer one now, but you are trying to change the subject.
It isn’t okay to lie for Jesus! It is never okay to lie!

Date: 2010/11/01 17:55:55, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Prediction verified.  He declared victory (more or less) and obviously feels that he has hit nerve with us.  One wonders what that nerve actually is, since he's the one that kept changing topics.

Date: 2010/11/01 21:24:00, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (mplavcan @ Nov. 01 2010,19:25)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 01 2010,17:55)
Prediction verified.  He declared victory (more or less) and obviously feels that he has hit nerve with us.  One wonders what that nerve actually is, since he's the one that kept changing topics.

Whatever. He stands as a testimonial that there are people out there who are so calcified in their thinking that no evidence, no argument, no data, no documentation, not even written proof of their own illogic and hypocrisy, will convince them that they are wrong.

You aren't kidding.

Date: 2010/11/02 11:40:37, Link
Author: OgreMkV
hmm... IBIG is declaring victory and ignoring any requests to come here.

Who was it that said, he's looking for an audience?  

Of course, he doesn't want an audience of his fellow Christians since they will see what a lying hypocrite that he is.

To sum up: IBIG doesn't believe in the bible, nor he doesn't believe in science... yet he uses the trappings and tools of both to feed his own needy ego.

It's kind of sad really.  Ah well, I tried.

Date: 2010/11/02 21:07:59, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I've invited a guy from my thread on Amazon's SitC review to join in over here.

I doubt he will.  He seems to want a big audience, not logical science.  But it's an offer.  I made some predictions regarding this on the thread... we'll see if he has the stuff to come here.

Date: 2010/11/02 21:24:23, Link
Author: OgreMkV
#@$# #@@))#@ @#(&$@#  @#*@ #@*#  @#**#@)

Another four fracking years of Perry and his dumber than dog meat Republican "rewrite the books" State Fracking Board of Non-Education.

I'm so embarrassed by my beloved state.  Too many, short-sited, know nothing twits with delusions of adequacy.

The new motto of Texas: Because 'good enough' is just too much effort.

Frack

Date: 2010/11/03 06:57:50, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Badger3k @ Nov. 02 2010,23:22)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 02 2010,21:24)
#@$# #@@))#@ @#(&$@#  @#*@ #@*#  @#**#@)

Another four fracking years of Perry and his dumber than dog meat Republican "rewrite the books" State Fracking Board of Non-Education.

I'm so embarrassed by my beloved state.  Too many, short-sited, know nothing twits with delusions of adequacy.

The new motto of Texas: Because 'good enough' is just too much effort.

Frack

We have another four years of Pope Perry, and where I teach, Waco, we lost Chet Edwards, who was a strong supporter of veterans.  I am not collecting any benefits (although I had hoped for Chet to see if he could do anything about that), but now I can count on being doubly screwed.  

I haven't looked at the school board elections yet - I'm not sure if the inbred crowd won or not.  Is it too much to hope for a tiny bit of intelligence and sanity?

Probably.

When I left there were only two non-theocrats and they were both un-contested races.

We are so screwed.

Date: 2010/11/03 13:57:16, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Is he still babbling on at PT... even in his 'new guise'?

Date: 2010/11/03 14:18:11, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Like he's interested in following 'rules'...

Date: 2010/11/03 18:49:41, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Keep trying to redirect here.

Date: 2010/11/03 19:09:59, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Nov. 03 2010,19:06)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2010,18:49)
Keep trying to redirect here.

Done!  Although I see you beat me to it.  ???

I would like to think I was sufficiently polite about it...


The MadPanda, FCD

It's a question of "will s/he be polite enough to come here" or will they continue to flood the PT Wall even after multiple requests to move the discussion elsewhere.

Time will tell.

Date: 2010/11/03 19:43:49, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Nov. 03 2010,19:25)
Alas, yes.

And now I have an old childhood memory stuck in my mind's eye: Les Lye, from You Can't Do That On Television, clutching his head and asking "where does the school board find them, and why do they send them here" in response to the kids' antics.

At the time, I thought that was pretty funny.  But then, at that time, all the jokes in Zorro the Gay Blade went whirring cheerfully way over my head.

The MadPanda, FCD

I had the biggest crush on Moose.

Date: 2010/11/03 20:32:46, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Nov. 03 2010,19:58)
You, too?   :D

The ep where poor Moose got stuck behind nothing but a cue card at the very end because they'd bottomed out the wardrobe budget was particularly interesting.


The MadPanda, FCD

Sorry for the derail... heh

You Can't Do That on TeleVision

Date: 2010/11/03 22:21:51, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Chocolate Banana Bread

1/2 cup toasted walnuts or pecans, coarsely chopped
1 3/4 cups all-purpose flour
1/4 cup Dutch-processed cocoa powder
1 cup granulated white sugar
1 teaspoons baking powder
1/4 teaspoon baking soda
1/4 teaspoon salt
1/2 cup white or dark chocolate chips
2 large eggs, lightly beaten
1/2 cup unsalted butter, melted and cooled
3 ripe bananas, mashed well (about 1-1/2 cups)
1 teaspoon pure vanilla extract

Preheat oven to 350 degrees F (180 degrees C) and place oven rack to middle position. Butter and flour (or spray with a non stick vegetable/flour spray) the bottom and sides of a 9 x 5 x 3 inch (23 x 13 x 8 cm) loaf pan.

In a large bowl whisk together the flour, cocoa powder, sugar, baking powder, baking soda, and salt.
In a medium-sized bowl combine the mashed bananas, eggs, melted butter, and vanilla. With a rubber spatula or wooden spoon, lightly fold the wet ingredients (banana mixture) into the dry ingredients until just combined and batter is thick and chunky. Fold in the nuts and chocolate chips. Scrape batter into prepared pan and sprinkle the top of the bread with coarse brown sugar (optional). Bake until bread has risen and a toothpick inserted in the center comes out clean, about 55 to 65 minutes. Place on a wire rack to cool and then remove the bread from the pan. Serve warm or at room temperature.

A couple of notes:
almonds and dove chocolates (about 10) chopped roughly works really well too.

use a large fork or a potato masher for the bananas, mash to your preference, I prefer a very rough mash so the bread has lots of chunks of banana.  If you don't want that, then mash to paste.

I make a heck of a lot of this in this season, so if anyone is in Central Texas, look me up.

If you guys are really nice, I'll put up my granddad's chili recipe.

Date: 2010/11/04 07:00:42, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Badger3k @ Nov. 03 2010,23:44)
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 03 2010,23:28)
For some guy at PT who got bathroom-walled and wants to talk about evolution.

So there is a porpoise to this thread?

I hear it's a whale of a tale...

Date: 2010/11/04 15:09:26, Link
Author: OgreMkV
{squeak squeak}

Flipper, there's a creationist?

{squeak}

Who believes that the Earth is 6000 years old?

{squeak squeak squeak}

and thinks you're just a dumb animal?

{squeak squeak}

Well, no, I don't think Popper would consider it a falsifiable hypothesis

{squeak squeak squeak squeak}

Look, I don't care if you're brain is the same size as mine, yours is mostly for sonar imaging, not advanced cognitive thinking...

{squeak}

My mother is NOT a whale...

Date: 2010/11/04 17:18:31, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,17:16)
Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

OK, IBIG, was the discovery article telling the truth about what E. Pennisi said?

Please explain why my quote-mine of the Bible is wrong, while the discovery article quote-mine is OK.

Date: 2010/11/04 17:45:48, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,17:42)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,17:18)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,17:16)
Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

OK, IBIG, was the discovery article telling the truth about what E. Pennisi said?

Please explain why my quote-mine of the Bible is wrong, while the discovery article quote-mine is OK.

Has E. Pennisi ever stated that it was a quote-mine by Discovery.org? Clearly she could defend herself right?

I've already stated that it wasn't a quote-mine, clearly Discovery.org was arguing about the universality of these genes, and how it invalidated the grand claims for them. I don't see any quote-mine or dishonesty on the part of Discovery.org, but like I said earlier what does it matter to someone who doesn't believe in moral absolutes like yourself? You are arguing like you believe in moral absolutes, yet you claim that there are no such absolutes, you can't have it both ways:)

The morality or lack thereof doesn't matter.

Either discovery is lying or they are not.  Which is it?

I have shown, upwards of 5 times, that the discovery article leads the reader to a false conclusion.  That is lying.

Why is that different from my bible quote, "There is no God" Psalms (something or other)?

Right now, I don't care about morality (except yours), what we need to know is why is one quote-mine OK and one it not OK?

Date: 2010/11/04 20:21:40, Link
Author: OgreMkV
IBIG, please tell me you can't be this dense.

The discovery article says (quoting Elizabeth Pennisi)
Quote
But that raises a fundamental problem. Elizabeth Pennisi, in a report about evo devo for the journal Science, dated Nov. 1, 2002, stated the problem this way: "The lists [of conserved genes give] no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different."


Now, when any sane person reads this, they are led to the conclusion that there is a fundamental problem with evo-devo.

However, the Pennisi article continues with:
Quote

   The lists gave no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different. And given the evolutionary distance between, say, a fruit fly and a shark, "there isn't really an experimental manipulation to let you get at what the genes are actually doing," says Rudolf Raff, an evolutionary developmental biologist at Indiana University, Bloomington (IUB).

   The solution, say Jeffery and others, is to focus on genetically based developmental differences between closely related species, or even among individuals of the same species. This is the stuff of microevolutionists, who care most about how individuals vary naturally within a population and how environmental forces affect this variation.


It then goes on to list three examples where the solution has been applied and shown to work.

Therefore, the discovery article is wrong.

Since, they the statement that leads to the correct conclusion of the article is the one immediately following the statement quoted, then they knowingly left out part of the quote.  

That is lying by omission, aka a quote-mine.

NOTE: The fact that it is a quote-mine has NOTHING to do with the correctness or incorrectness of EITHER article.

Let me give an example:

If a Daily Telegraph article says, "Doctor cures three-headed baby.  'It's a dangerous operation,' said one doctor, 'I only give if it a 5% chance of working.'  However, the operation went without a hitch and the baby is doing well."

Now, if I quote that article like this, "'It's a dangerous operation,' said one doctor, 'I only give if it a 5% chance of working.'"

I made a quote-mine.  I'm leaving off the part where the operation actually worked.

Is this example a quote-mine (yes or no)?

If yes, then why isn't the discovery article?

If no, then you are supporting lying.

Enough with the philosophical BS.  Just answer the question yes or no.

You know you can't, that's why you won't give us a straight answer.

Date: 2010/11/04 21:09:05, Link
Author: OgreMkV
IBIG, if you (or anyone else for that matter) is interested in the pre-biotic world then, ** you might like to attend this FREE workshop put on by NASA.

NASA Workshop Without Walls




** Provided you are willing to learn.

Date: 2010/11/04 21:29:04, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Hey Joe, just out of curiosity, what do you think "Steam" is?

Date: 2010/11/04 21:41:33, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 04 2010,21:34)
It seems odd that IBelieve would attempt to prove the existence of absolutes, and by proxy, prove that his (mis)interpretation of the Bible is 1110% correct and has to be worshiped as God immediately, by asking deliberately stupid and illogical questions.

It also seems odd that IBelieve wants us to obey him when he claims that God, via a literal interpretation of the English translation of the Bible, is the absolute source of all morality, even though that would mean murdering children, and taking underaged girls as sex slaves is morally good.

Very true.  What's interesting is that there has been no discussion of the ten commandments in his 'absolute morality' crap.

What's even funnier, is that if the Bible is 1100% correct and literal, then Jesus cannot be the messiah, which means the Jews were right all along... funnier and funnier.

He's also missed two avenues of attack on the discovery article quote-mine.  He just doesn't have the knowledge or critical thinking ability to see them.

Date: 2010/11/04 22:03:22, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 04 2010,21:58)
[quote=OgreMkV,Nov. 04 2010,21:41]
I wonder if the reason why he isn't mentioning the 10 Commandments because even he realizes that his demanding that we forsake science and logic in order to worship his misinterpretation of the Bible, thereby massaging his ego, would entail the breaking of no less than 3 Commandments (i.e., bearing false witness, taking God in vain, and worshiping something other than God).

Plus, wasn't IBelieve's argument concerning the parts of the Bible saying that Jesus wasn't the Messiah was that a) those were some of the parts of the Bible that were up for interpretation, and that b) we weren't given permission to interpret the Bible?

Or am I confusing that with when IBelieve said that the Bible magically stated that a "prophetic year" was magically 360 days instead of 365(.257) because he said so?

Exactly.

He's (ahem) not being very forthright.  He chastises me for saying that the Bible is not inerrant.  Then he turns around and says it's open to interpretation.

Arguably, "open to interpretation" does not equal "errors", but you'd think that The Word Of God would at least not be vague.

Just think, thousands of CHRISTIANS have been killing each other over interpretations of The Bible.

And he says we're nuts...

Date: 2010/11/05 07:11:07, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,03:45)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,20:21)
IBIG, please tell me you can't be this dense.

The discovery article says (quoting Elizabeth Pennisi)
 
Quote
But that raises a fundamental problem. Elizabeth Pennisi, in a report about evo devo for the journal Science, dated Nov. 1, 2002, stated the problem this way: "The lists [of conserved genes give] no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different."


Now, when any sane person reads this, they are led to the conclusion that there is a fundamental problem with evo-devo.

However, the Pennisi article continues with:
 
Quote

   The lists gave no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different. And given the evolutionary distance between, say, a fruit fly and a shark, "there isn't really an experimental manipulation to let you get at what the genes are actually doing," says Rudolf Raff, an evolutionary developmental biologist at Indiana University, Bloomington (IUB).

   The solution, say Jeffery and others, is to focus on genetically based developmental differences between closely related species, or even among individuals of the same species. This is the stuff of microevolutionists, who care most about how individuals vary naturally within a population and how environmental forces affect this variation.


It then goes on to list three examples where the solution has been applied and shown to work.

Therefore, the discovery article is wrong.

Since, they the statement that leads to the correct conclusion of the article is the one immediately following the statement quoted, then they knowingly left out part of the quote.  

That is lying by omission, aka a quote-mine.

NOTE: The fact that it is a quote-mine has NOTHING to do with the correctness or incorrectness of EITHER article.

Let me give an example:

If a Daily Telegraph article says, "Doctor cures three-headed baby.  'It's a dangerous operation,' said one doctor, 'I only give if it a 5% chance of working.'  However, the operation went without a hitch and the baby is doing well."

Now, if I quote that article like this, "'It's a dangerous operation,' said one doctor, 'I only give if it a 5% chance of working.'"

I made a quote-mine.  I'm leaving off the part where the operation actually worked.

Is this example a quote-mine (yes or no)?

If yes, then why isn't the discovery article?

If no, then you are supporting lying.

Enough with the philosophical BS.  Just answer the question yes or no.

You know you can't, that's why you won't give us a straight answer.


Here is the problem with you claim, first if it were true that Elizabeth Pennisi were quote-mined, she could have spoken out and stated the she was quoted inappropriately, which to my knowledge hasn't happened, correct me if I'm wrong. Second, the quote was not used out of context, Discovery is arguing against the grand claims of evo-devo, read the article again, they clearly stated that there were successes, but you seem to be implying that evo-devo has somehow proven evolution from common descent, and Discovery is purposefully quote-mining E. Pennisi to argue that it couldn't happen.

The quote was not to disprove that evo-devo doesn't have answers to changes that are observed, it was used to show the absurdity of the grander claims of evo-devo in regards to evolution by common descent. You are mixing the grander claims of evo-devo, with the actual small successes, i.e. spots on butterfly wings, legs in place of antennae, etc... Nothing new with evolutionists I might add, just par for the course. You are so blind that you couldn't see the truth, if it hit you in the face with a sledgehammer.

Again it is clear that Discovery is not guilty of quote-mining, and again you are arguing an absolute, which doesn't make any sense considering you don't even believe in absolutes!

Sorry dude, they are taking the claim out of context and using it to argue a point that is not made by the original article = quote-mine.

Let me ask you this: What part of "The correctness or uncorrectness of EITHER article's conclusion" don't you get"?

You STILL haven't answer the only question that matters about this point.

Why is my quote-mine of the Bible wrong and discovery's quote-mine of Science OK?

The absolutes argument is just a Red Herring and has nothing to do with you supporting the lies of the discovery institute.

Why is it OK for them to quote-mine and it's not OK for me to say, "The Bible says "There is no God" Psalms 14:1?

If you say one is OK and one is not, then you don't believe in absolutes either.  If both are OK or both not OK, then you are supporting something that is lying.

Which is it IBIG?  I was really hoping you would answer questions.  I guess that's too much to ask of a Christian.

Yes or No IBIG, Is my quote from the Bible OK?

Yes or No IBIG, Is my quote from the Bible structurally the same as the quote from discovery?

Yes or No IBIG, then explain why...

Date: 2010/11/05 07:14:40, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,06:48)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,21:29)
Hey Joe, just out of curiosity, what do you think "Steam" is?

I bet if I hit you with a water balloon and an ice-filled balloon yu morons would understand the difference.

And I bet if I forced your hand into a tub of warm water and then into the path of some steam you would know the difference between those two also.

Steam is steam- made from water, yes

Actually, I was being facetious.  

So, just out of curiosity, what is the difference between the molecules of water, ice, and steam?

BTW: You really don't have to be an ass about the answers.

Date: 2010/11/05 08:52:49, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,08:42)
Here is the difference:

You quoted part of Psalm 14:1 "there is no God", from the scripture that states:

Psalm 14:1 (New International Version)

1 The fool says in his heart,
  “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
  there is no one who does good.

Clearly the intent of the scripture is the opposite of what you quoted, now to the difference.

Discovery quoted Elizabeth Pennisi in the context of the universality of the conserved genes, which is correct because that was the entire point of their argument against the grander claims of evo-devo. They did give evo-devo credit for some successes, but there argument wasn't that there were no successes at all, but that the very universality of the conserved genes couldn't have resulted in all of the diversity of life, aka evolution from common descent. So, you are wrong, if they quoted Elizabeth Pennisi, and then used it to state that there were no successes, and that there would be no successes, then it would have been a quote-mine, but that is not what they did, and that is where you are wrong. If Elizabeth Pennisi was quoted out of context then why hasn't she spoke out?

Tell me something... what, exactly, was the conclusion from Pennisi's science paper?

Date: 2010/11/05 12:30:23, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,09:12)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2010,08:52)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,08:42)
Here is the difference:

You quoted part of Psalm 14:1 "there is no God", from the scripture that states:

Psalm 14:1 (New International Version)

1 The fool says in his heart,
  “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
  there is no one who does good.

Clearly the intent of the scripture is the opposite of what you quoted, now to the difference.

Discovery quoted Elizabeth Pennisi in the context of the universality of the conserved genes, which is correct because that was the entire point of their argument against the grander claims of evo-devo. They did give evo-devo credit for some successes, but there argument wasn't that there were no successes at all, but that the very universality of the conserved genes couldn't have resulted in all of the diversity of life, aka evolution from common descent. So, you are wrong, if they quoted Elizabeth Pennisi, and then used it to state that there were no successes, and that there would be no successes, then it would have been a quote-mine, but that is not what they did, and that is where you are wrong. If Elizabeth Pennisi was quoted out of context then why hasn't she spoke out?

Tell me something... what, exactly, was the conclusion from Pennisi's science paper?

It doesn't matter what her conclusion was because that would only be her opinion now wouldn't it? Here is the quote again, “The lists [of conserved genes give] no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different.”

I think you would agree that this quote is a factual quote, now read the part in bold, because that is the important part of the quote as related to the Discovery article. This is directly related to evolution by common descent, and not changes that have actually been observed. You see evolutionists see little changes, and then make grand claims from the little changes. I know you will say evolution takes millions of years, but then you are bringing speculation back into the argument, and not real science, as it is impossible to observed what happened over a million years.

hmmm... since the entire charge of quote-mining IS BASED on the conclusion of the original article, then how can it not be relevent?

Also, how can you say what Pennisi's article even said if you haven't read it?

Absolutes or not YOU CAN'T DRAW A CONCLUSION IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE PAPER.

So, we'll just chalk this up to something else you don't know enough about to have a non-biased opinion.

ALong this same vein, you previously quoted an MIT monograph and a Campbell Reese textbook as supporting your position... have you read either?  or do you unquestioningly accept discovery?

If I could prove to you that they lied would you continue to support them?

Date: 2010/11/05 15:46:40, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 05 2010,15:33)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2010,13:11)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 05 2010,04:42)
Wrong again occam's afterbirth- the assumed words are still there- meaning the one-wrod sentences are not one-word.

Bollocks.

Agreed.

You!

Date: 2010/11/05 21:11:53, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Oh yeah, Joe.  As I recall, you were going to explain how to calculate CSI and EF and ASPCA the last time we talked.

How long a string do you need to have to run the calculations?

I can get you two binary strings, one random and one that will access a particular memory block on an 8088 processor.  Will those be long enough for you to run the calculations on?

I'm looking forward to it.

Thanks

Date: 2010/11/06 08:26:46, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 06 2010,07:29)
I still find it folly that you are still stuck on an alleged quote-mine that the author of, hasn't even spoke out about. I still don't believe that it is a quote-mine, and you believe that it is, so why don't you move on.

yeah, yeah.  You lose and refuse to even fight the battle.  I accept that.

I know you don't think it's quote-mining.  But since you can't explain why my quote-mine of the Bible is different from discovery's quote-mine of Pennisi's article, then I'll feel free to use quote-mines against you from now on.

Alternately, we can both agree that quotes have no business in this discussion what-so-ever and not use them at all.  (Mainly because every quote you have presented is a quote-mine and you know it, because I have destroyed everyone... including the ones you stole that 'support' your view of the Bible.)

Anyway,

So tell me do you own and have you read the MIT monograph you quoted and the Reese/Campbell Biology book you quoted?

Do you trust discovery.org implicitly?

Date: 2010/11/06 14:00:29, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 06 2010,11:21)
Quote (Badger3k @ Nov. 06 2010,00:25)
Quote (rhmc @ Nov. 05 2010,20:07)
 
Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 04 2010,21:38)
 
Quote (rhmc @ Nov. 02 2010,18:46)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 01 2010,10:43)
I think I'd pay $20 just to make that happen...

perfect.  so where do i meet her?  

and i guess you'll need to send me the twenny.

Orlando.  Disney World.  Behind Cinderella's Castle.  I'll bring the ostrich plumes and greasepaint.

sounds like i'm being setup to get mugged by the little mermaid's entourage.

does rich have to pay me more for that?

Only if you bring the midgets.

Not midgets, dwarves.  If you call them midgets they get Grumpy.  I swear, though, the next one that says "Hi, Ho'" to me gets tossed.   :angry:

'tossed' has a slightly different meaning when midgets... ahem... dwarves aren't involved.

Date: 2010/11/06 16:09:14, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 06 2010,15:53)
Quote (phhht @ Nov. 06 2010,16:27)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,09:43)

I don't know what happen[ed] millions of years ago, it would be speculation for me to say. I do know someone who does know though, and one day I will know exactly what happened. But, for the time being nobody knows and nobody will know in this lifetime.

You don't know what happened two thousand years ago, that's certain.

Absolutely!

hmmm...

If science cannot be used to describe what happened in the past, then how can we know anything that has happened when we cannot see it?

Here's two questions for you...

IBIG, who actually wrote down the stories of Genesis (and any of the others for that matter)?  

How do you know your computer works?

Date: 2010/11/07 11:55:49, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Finally got Surface Detail, Iain M. Banks latest Culture novel.

Since the book is really about heaven and hell in technological societies, I thought this passage very telling.

Quote
Almost every developing species had a creation myth buried somewhere in its past, even if by the time they'd become space-faring it was no more than a quaint and dusty irrelevance (though, granted, some were downright embarrassing).  Talking utter drivel about thunderclouds having sex with the sun, lonely old sadists inventing something to amuse themselves with, a big fish spawning the stars, planets, moons and your own ever-so-special People - or whatever other nonsense had wandered into the most likely feverish mind of the enthusiast who had come up with the idea in the first place - at least showed you were interested in trying to provide an explanation for the world around you, and so was generally held to be a promising first step towards coming up with the belief system that provably worked and genuinely did produce miracles: reason, science and technology.


I dare any religious person to defy that reason, science and technology are provably better than whatever beliefs that they hold to.

Date: 2010/11/08 08:25:42, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 08 2010,07:44)
I wonder why IBelieve is so reluctant to answer our questions?  I mean, he refuses to explain why it is folly for us to assume that the Discovery Institute lied when they were quoting that scientist, even though the Discovery Institute deliberately rephrased the author's words to imply that she was saying that evolutionary development magically disproves evolution, and that her original words claimed something completely opposite?

On the other hand, the moment IBelieve gets back, he's going to make some condescending excuse about how he interrupted his precious internet trolling time because he needed to do some errand for his alleged real life where he makes gobs upon gobs of more money that stupid evil scientists.

And then he's going to change the subject, and then mock us because he is physically incapable of answering any of our questions truthfully.

I bet the new response will be a link to a youtube video and a "how about that"

It's almost a shame.  I really want to have a conversation, but when someone is as unpenetrably thick as IBIG, it's very difficult.

I'm thinking that I'll start laying out the evidence for Common Descent and let IBIG have at it.

I'd also really like a conversation on Flood geology.

What's it to be IBIG?

Date: 2010/11/09 07:46:01, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 08 2010,18:26)
Quote (prong_hunter @ Nov. 08 2010,18:20)
I too would like to discuss 'flood geology' with IBIG but I fear it is impossible. He seems incapable of original thought. He only parrots what he's been fed and what he chooses to believe, blindly. He sees neither the consequences of his statements nor the illogic of his arguments, yet he calls himself a master of logic. He cannot reason.

He declares victory on the Bathroom Wall after clogging it to a standstill with his 'effluent', justifying his existence, and proving he is 'right'.

This guy sounds very much like an AFDave style TARD.

how utterly boring.

If you've seen one TARDbucket, you've seen them all.

Nah, he's not as good as AFDave was.  He doesn't have a hypothesis.  He pretends to know about science, but I think he knows enough to know that he has an untenable position.

Between that and discovery quotemines... blech.

Date: 2010/11/09 13:25:43, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Hi Joe,

As I recall, last time you were around, you were going to explain how to calculate CSI and EF and all that good stuff.

What amount of information do you need and would binary be sufficient?

I'm thinking I've got a bit of machine code that retrieves the contents of a certain memory location and then you can compare that to a random string of binary code.

Don't worry about the depth of your explanation.  In my current job, I sit next to 8 mathematicians, 2 of whom have doctoral degrees and 4 have masters degrees in various math topics.  I am also good friends with 3 psycometricians, all of whom have doctoral degrees in statistics.

Thanks

Date: 2010/11/09 14:08:01, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,13:41)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 09 2010,13:25)
Hi Joe,

As I recall, last time you were around, you were going to explain how to calculate CSI and EF and all that good stuff.

What amount of information do you need and would binary be sufficient?

I'm thinking I've got a bit of machine code that retrieves the contents of a certain memory location and then you can compare that to a random string of binary code.

Don't worry about the depth of your explanation.  In my current job, I sit next to 8 mathematicians, 2 of whom have doctoral degrees and 4 have masters degrees in various math topics.  I am also good friends with 3 psycometricians, all of whom have doctoral degrees in statistics.

Thanks

Hi Ogre,

I remember tlling you not to worry about ID and instead you need to focus on finding positive evidence for your position.

How is that working out?

Ah yes, I didn't think you could.  Thanks for the confirmation.

My position is just fine thank you...  approximately 14,000 peer-reviewed papers published this year... not including review papers and disagreement papers.

What have you got?  A YEC mathematician who refuses to publish his own work.

Got it, thanks.

Date: 2010/11/09 18:55:46, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Joe and Dembski...

Date: 2010/11/09 21:04:16, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,13:43)
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 09 2010,13:30)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,13:14)
 
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 09 2010,13:12)
   
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 09 2010,12:58)
It can't be more incomplete than the theory of evolution. Geez at least ID has a testable hypothesis...


Ahhh yes...the ever-repeated claim that no ID proponent seems capable of substantiating. How odd that. LOL!

Go ahead Joe...wow us again with that vapor-hypothesis!

:D

Robin, Several IDists have proposed testable hypotheses for ID.

Mine version is on my blog.


BZZZZZZ! Sorry Joe, but that isn't a correct answer. You forgot to phrase it in the form of a question. Further, claiming that "oh...there are hypotheses out there; you just have to go find them..." doesn't work. If you can't post such with a publishing reference, your just blowing turd as usual. I have no interest in turd-blowers who can't provide actual citations.

But do come on back when you have something of value besides turd-blowing though, m'kay?  Thanks Joe!

Well Robin all evotards are turd-blowers as they cannot provide a citation that supports their claims.

Ask me a question about real science (not what you THINK (if that's even possible) and I'll provide you with so many citations, your pathetic little 486-66 will asplode.

hmmm... let me go ahead and start.

Evolution has been observed taking place in real world living organisms and documented doing so in peer reviewed scientific papers. From the literature on nylonase alone, we have this collection of scientific papers:

A New Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene (nylC) On Plasmid pOAD2 From A Flavobacterium sp. by Seiji Negoro, Shinji Kakudo, Itaru Urabe, and Hirosuke Okadam, Journal of Bacteriology, 174(12): 7948-7953 (December 1992)

A Plasmid Encoding Enzymes For Nylon Oligomer Degradation: Nucleotide Sequence And Analysis Of pOAD2 by Ko Kato, Kinya Ohtsuki, Yuji Koda, Tohru Maekawa, Tetsuya Yomo, Seiji Negoro and Itaru Urabe, Microbiology, 141: 2585-2590 (1995)

Biodegradation Of Nylon Oligomers by Seiji Negoro, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 54: 461-466 (26th May 2000)

Birth Of A Unique Enzyme From An Alternative Reading Frame Of The Pre-eEisted, Internally Repetitious Coding Sequence by Susumu Ohno, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 81: 2421-2425 (April 1984)

DNA-DNA Hybridization Analysis Of Nylon Oligomer-Degradative Plasmid pOAD2: Identification Of The DNA Region Analogous To The Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene by Seiji Negoro, Shunichi Nakamura and Hirosuke Okada, Journal of Bacteriology, 158(2): 419-424 (May 1984)

Emergence Of Nylon Oligomer Degradation Enzymes In Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO Through Experimental Evolution by Irfan J. Prijambada, Seiji Negoro, Tetsuya Yomo and Itaru Urabe, Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022 (May 1995)

Insertion Sequence IS6100 On Plasmid pOAD2, Which Degrades Nylon Oligomers by Ko Kato, Kinya Ohtsuki, Hiroyuki Mitsuda, Tetsuya Yomo, Seiji Negoro and Itaru Urabe, Journal of Bacteriology, 176(4): 1197-1200 (February 1994)

No Stop Codons In The Antisense Strands Of The Genes For Nylon Oligomer Degradation by Tetsuya Yomo, Itaru Urabe and Hirosuke Okada, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 89: 3780-3784 (May 1992)

Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene, nylC, On Plasmid pOAD2 From A Flavobacterium Strain Encodes Endo-Type 6-Aminohexanoate Oligomer Hydrolase: Purification And Characterisation Of The nylC Product by Shinji Kakudo, Seiji Negoro, Itaru Urabe and Hirosuke Okada, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 59(11): 3978-3980 (November 1993)

Plasmid-Determined Enzymatic Degradation Of Nylon Oligomers by Seiji Negoro, Tomoyasu Taniguchi, Masaharu Kanaoka, Hiroyuki Kimura and Hirosuke Okada, Journal of Bacteriology, 155(1): 22-31 (July 1983)

The nylonase enzyme did not appear in these bacteria until the 1980s. Indeed, Nylon itself, and the oligomers associated with it that these bacteria metabolise, did not exist in the environment until 1935, which means that there was no reason for bacteria to possess a capability to metabolise these substances before that date. Moreover, the mechanism by which the nylonase gene came into being is well known and documented - it was the result of a frameshift mutation that generated a complete new gene that did not previously exist. This is merely one of many instances of evolution being observed taking place - the landmark paper in the field to date is this one:

Historical Contingency And Evolution Of A Key Innovation In An Experimental Population Of Escherichia coli by Zachary D. Blount, Christina Z. Borland and Richard E. Lenski, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105(23): 7899-7906 (10th June 2008) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Quote

Blount, Borland & Lenski, 2008 wrote:

The role of historical contingency in evolution has been much debated, but rarely tested. Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions. No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these hypotheses in experiments that ‘‘replayed’’ evolution from different points in that population’s history. We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 × 1012 ancestral cells, nor among 9 × 1012 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations. This potentiating change increased the mutation rate to Cit+ but did not cause generalized hypermutability.
Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection.



Direct Experimental Tests Of Evolutionary Concepts

A Model For Divergent Allopatric Speciation Of Polyploid Pteridophytes Resulting From Silencing Of Duplicate-Gene Expression by Charles R.E. Werth and Michael D. Windham, American Naturalist, 137(4): 515-526 (April 1991) - DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL TO MATCH OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

A Molecular Reexamination Of Diploid Hybrid Speciation Of Solanum raphanifolium by David M. Spooner, Kenneth. J. Sytsma and James F. Smith, Evolution, 45(3): 757-764 - DOCUMENTATION OF AN OBSERVED SPECIATION EVENT

Cavefish As A Model System In Evolutionary Developmental Biology by William R. Jeffrey, Developmental Biology, 231:, 1-12 (1 Mar 2001) - contains experimental tests of hypotheses about eye evolution

Chromosome Evolution, Phylogeny, And Speciation Of Rock Wallabies, by G. B. Sharman, R. L. Close and G. M. Maynes, Australian Journal of Zoology, 37(2-4): 351-363 (1991) - DOCUMENTATION OF OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

Crystal Structure Of An Ancient Protein: Evolution By Conformational Epistasis by Eric A. Ortlund, Jamie T. Bridgham, Matthew R. Redinbo and Joseph W. Thornton, Science, 317: 1544-1548 (14 September 2007) - refers to the reconstruction of ancient proteins from extinct animals by back-tracking along the molecular phylogenetic trees and demonstrating that the proteins in question WORK

Evidence For Rapid Speciation Following A Founder Event In The Laboratory by James R. Weinberg Victoria R. Starczak and Danielle Jörg, Evolution 46: 1214-1220 (15th January 1992) - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Evolutionary Theory And Process Of Active Speciation And Adaptive Radiation In Subterranean Mole Rats, Spalax ehrenbergi Superspecies, In Israel by E. Nevo, Evolutionary Biology, 25: 1-125 - DOCUMENTATION OF OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

Experimentally Created Incipient Species Of Drosophila by Theodosius Dobzhansky & Olga Pavlovsky, Nature 230: 289 - 292 (2nd April 1971) - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Founder-Flush Speciation On Drosophila pseudoobscura: A Large Scale Experiment by Agustí Galiana, Andrés Moya and Francisco J. Alaya, Evolution 47: 432-444 (1993) EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Genetics Of Natural Populations XII. Experimental Reproduction Of Some Of the Changes Caused by Natural Selection by Sewall Wright & Theodosius Dobzkansky, Genetics, 31(2): 125-156 (1946) - direct experimental tests of natural selection mechanisms

Hedgehog Signalling Controls Eye Degeneration In Blind Cavefish by Yoshiyuki Yamamoto, David W. Stock and William R. Jeffery, Nature, 431: 844-847 (14 Oct 2004) - direct experimental test of theories about eye evolution and the elucidation of the controlling genes involved

Initial Sequencing Of The Chimpanzee Genome And Comparison With The Human Genome, The Chimpanzee Genome Sequencing Consortium (see paper for full list of 68 authors), Nature, 437: 69-87 (1 September 2005) - direct sequencing of the chimpanzee genome and direct comparison of this genome with the previously sequenced human genome, whereby the scientists discovered that fully twenty-nine percent of the orthologous proteins of humans and chimpanzees are IDENTICAL

Origin Of The Superflock Of Cichlid Fishes From Lake Victoria, East Africa by Erik Verheyen, Walter Salzburger, Jos Snoeks and Axel Meyer, Science, 300: 325-329 (11 April 2003) - direct experimental determination of the molecular phylogeny of the Lake Victoria Superflock, including IDENTIFYING THE COMMON ANCESTOR OF THE 350+ SPECIES IN QUESTION and NAMING THAT ANCESTOR as Haplochromis gracilior

Phagotrophy By A Flagellate Selects For Colonial Prey: A Possible Origin Of Multicellularity by Martin.E. Boraas, Dianne.B. Seale and Joseph .E. Boxhorn, Evolutionary Ecology 12(2): 153-164 (February 1998 ) - direct experimental test of hypotheses about the origins of multicellularity

Pollen-Mediated Introgression And Hybrid Speciation In Louisiana Irises by Michael L. Arnold, Cindy M. Buckner and Jonathan J. Robinson, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 88(4): 1398-1402 (February 1991) - OBSERVATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE

Protein Engineering Of Hydrogenase 3 To Enhance Hydrogen Production by Toshinari. Maeda, Viviana. Sanchez-Torres and Thomas. K. Wood, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 79(1): 77-86 (May 2008) - DIRECT EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION OF EVOLUTION IN THE LABORATORY TO PRODUCE A NEW BIOTECHNOLOGY PRODUCT

Resurrecting Ancient Genes: Experimental Analysis Of Extinct Molecules by Joseph W. Thornton, Nature Reviews: Genetics, 5: 366-375 (5 May 2004) - direct experimental reconstruction in the laboratory of ancient proteins from extinct animals

Sexual Isolation Caused By Selection For Positive And Negative Phototaxis And Geotaxis In Drosophila pseudoobscura by E. del Solar, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 56: 484-487 (1966) - direct experimental test of selection mechanisms and their implications for speciation

Speciation By Hybridisation In Heliconius Butterflies by Jesús Mavárez, Camilo A. Salazar, Eldredge Bermingham, Christian Salcedo, Chris D. Jiggins and Mauricio Linares, Nature, 441: 868-871 (15th June 2006) - DETERMINATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE, FOLLOWED BY LABOARTORY REPRODUCTION OF THAT SPECIATION EVENT, AND CONFIRMATION THAT THE LABORATORY INDIVIDUALS ARE INTERFERTILE WITH THE WILD TYPE INDIVIDUALS

Speciation By Hybridization In Phasmids And Other Insects By Luciano Bullini and Guiseppe Nascetti, Canadian Journal of Zoology 68(8): 1747-1760 (1990) - OBSERVATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE

The Gibbons Speciation Mechanism by S. Ramadevon and M. A. B. Deaken, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 145(4): 447-456 (1991) - DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL ACCOUNTING FOR OBSERVED INSTANCES OF SPECIATION

The Master Control Gene For Morphogenesis And Evolution Of The Eye by Walter J. Gehrig, Genes to Cells, 1: 11-15, 1996 - direct experimental test of hypotheses concerning eye evolution including the elucidation of the connection between the Pax6 gene and eye morphogenesis, and the experimental manipulation of that gene to control eye development

The Past As The Key To The Present: Resurrection Of Ancient Proteins From Eosinophils by Steven A. Benner, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA., 99(8): 4760-4761 (16 April 2002) - direct experimental reconstruction of ancient proteins from extinct animals

This list is by no means complete, because over eighteen thousand critically robust peer reviewed papers were published in evolutionary biology in 2007 alone. The number of papers published in the subject since Darwin first published The Origin of Species probably exceeds a million or so, if someone were ever to perform the requisite accounting.



As I recall, you have an issue with abiogensis.  First, conflating evolutionary theory with abiogenesis is not only wrong, not only scientifically invalid, but why, as a common creationist fabrication, it too is regarded here with scorn and derision.

As for self replicating systems, if you think scientists have no clue about the formation of these, the following scientific papers will disabuse you of that farcical notion:

A Self-Replicating Ligase Ribozyme by Natasha Paul & Gerald F. Joyce, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 99(20): 12733-12740 (1st October 2002)

A Self-Replicating System by T. Tjivuka, P. Ballester and J. Rebek Jr, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 112: 1249-1250 (1990)

Catalysis In Prebiotic Chemistry: Application To The Synthesis Of RNA Oligomers by James P. Ferris, Prakash C. Joshi, K-J Wang, S. Miyakawa and W. Huang, Advances in Space Research, 33: 100-105 (2004)

Cations As Mediators Of The Adsorption Of Nucleic Acids On Clay Surfaces In Prebiotic Environments by Marco Franchi, James P. Ferris and Enzo Gallori, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 33: 1-16 (2003)

Darwinian Evolution On A Chip by Brian M. Paegel and Gerald F. Joyce, Public Library of Science Biology, 6(4): e85 (April 2008)

Emergence Of A Replicating Species From An In Vitro RNA Evolution Reaction by Ronald R. Breaker and Gerald F. Joyce, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 91: 6093-6097 (June 1994)

Information Transfer From Peptide Nucleic Acids To RNA By Template-Directed Syntheses by Jürgen G. Schmidt, Peter E. Nielsen and Leslie E. Orgel, Nucleic Acids Research, 25(23): 4794-4802 (1997)

Ligation Of The Hairpin Ribozyme In cis Induced By Freezing And Dehydration by Sergei A. Kazakov, Svetlana V. Balatskaya and Brian H. Johnston, The RNA Journal, 12: 446-456 (2006)

Mineral Catalysis And Prebiotic Synthesis: Montmorillonite-Catalysed Formation Of RNA by James P. Ferris, Elements, 1: 145-149 (June 2005)

Montmorillonite Catalysis Of 30-50 Mer Oligonucleotides: Laboratory Demonstration Of Potential Steps In The Origin Of The RNA World by James P. Ferris, Origins of Life and Evolution of the biosphere, 32: 311-332 (2002)

Montmorillonite Catalysis Of RNA Oligomer Formation In Aqueous Solution: A Model For The Prebiotic Formation Of RNA by James P. Ferris and Gözen Ertem, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 115: 12270-12275 (1993)

Nucelotide Synthetase Ribozymes May Have Emerged First In The RNA World by Wentao Ma, Chunwu Yu, Wentao Zhang and Jiming Hu, The RNA Journal, 13: 2012-2019, 18th September 2007

Prebiotic Amino Acids As Asymmetric Catalysts by Sandra Pizzarello and Arthur L. Weber, Science, 303: 1151 (20 February 2004)

Prebiotic Chemistry And The Origin Of The RNA World by Leslie E. Orgel, Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 39: 99-123 (2004)

Prebiotic Synthesis On Minerals: Bridging The Prebiotic And RNA Worlds by James P. Ferris, Biological Bulletin, 196: 311-314 (June 1999)

Ribozymes: Building The RNA World by Gerald F. Joyce, Current Biology, 6(8): 965-967, 1996

RNA-Catalysed Nucleotide Synthesis by Peter J. Unrau and David P. Bartel, Nature, 395: 260-263 (17th September 1998)

RNA-Catalyzed RNA Polymerization: Accurate and General RNA-Templated Primer Extension by Wendy K. Johnston, Peter J. Unrau, Michael S. Lawrence, Margaret E. Glasner and David P. Bartel, Science, 292: 1319-1325, 18th May 2001

RNA-Directed Amino Acid Homochirality by J. Martyn Bailey, FASEB Journal (Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology), 12: 503-507 (1998)

RNA Evolution And The Origin Of Life by Gerald F. Joyce, Nature, 338: 217-224 (16th March 1989)

Self Replicating Systems by Volker Patzke and Günter von Kiedrowski, ARKIVOC 5: 293-310, 2007

Self-Organising Biochemical Cycles by Leslie E. Orgel, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 97(23): 12503-12507 (7th November 2000)

Self-Sustained Replication Of An RNA Enzyme by Tracey A. Lincoln and Gerald F. Joyce, ScienceExpress, DOI: 10.1126/science.1167856 (8th January 2009)

Sequence- And Regio-Selectivity In The Montmorillonite-Catalysed Synthesis Of RNA by Gözen Ertem and James P. Ferris, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 30: 411-422 (2000)

Synthesis Of 35-40 Mers Of RNA Oligomers From Unblocked Monomers. A Simple Approach To The RNA World by Wenhua Huang and James P. Ferris, Chemical Communications of the Royal Society of Chemistry, 1458-1459 (2003)

Synthesis Of Long Prebiotic Oligomers On Mineral Surfaces by James P. Ferris, Aubrey R. Hill Jr, Rihe Liu and Leslie E. Orgel, Nature, 381: 59-61 (2nd May 1996)

The Antiquity Of RNA-Based Evolution by Gerald F. Joyce, Nature, 418: 214-221, 11th July 2002

The Case For An Ancestral Genetic System Involving Simple Analogues Of The Nucleotides by Gerald F. Joyce, Alan W. Schwartz, Stanley L. Miller and Leslie E. Orgel, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 84: 4398-4402 (July 1987)

The Descent of Polymerisation by Matthew Levy and Andrew D. Ellington, Nature Structural Biology, 8(7): 580-582, July 2001

The Origin And Early Evolution Of Life: Prebiotic Chemistry, The Pre-RNA World, And Time by Antonio Laczano and Stanley R. Miller, Cell, 85: 793-798 (14th June 1996)

The Origin Of Replicators And Reproducers by Eörs Szathmáry, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1689-1702 (11th September 2006)

The Roads To And From The RNA World[/i] by Jason P. Dworkin, Antonio Lazcano and Stanley L. Miller, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 222: 127-134 (2003)

Transcription And Translation In An RNA World by William R. Taylor, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1689-1702 (11th September 2006)

That's thirty-three scientific papers covering the emergence of self-replicating systems and their behaviour in a prebiotic environment. If you think this is a problem for scientists, then you obviously never paid attention in proper science classes.

Finally, I'll ask you, what is the shortest RNA chain that can catalyze metabolic and/or cellular functions.  Until you answer that... go away.

Until you have read everyone of the papers I present and explained with references to other peer-reviewed work why the paper is wrong, you have no argument.  You are just a sad little man with delusions of adequacy.
BTW: Remember, the challenge is SCIENTIFIC questions... not questions that you THINK are scientific.

Speaking, of which, why do you keep challenging us, when you can't man up and answer one simple question about ID?

Fuck off, Chicken Little.

Date: 2010/11/10 08:59:10, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I declare victory.  Since IBIG hasn't answered any of our questions, then his religion is incapable of doing so and he's a poopy-head.

I submit that IBIG is the best evidence that god does not exist.  Who would knowingly have someone like IBIG supporting them?

The biggest problem is how to reach the dumb-as-bricks religious fundies that are in positions of power?

Date: 2010/11/10 11:50:22, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (prong_hunter @ Nov. 10 2010,11:31)
What bothers me is the dumb-as-bricks religious fundies that are in positions of power really are smart as foxes.  They know exactly what they are doing.

Heaven help us. (Dont worry, it's just a cultural saying.)

You know, I honestly can't decide whether I agree with this or not.

Without knowing the actual person involved, it's very (impossible?) to tell if they have a world mastery plan and are just using religion as their opiate of the masses or if they really are true believers (that also believe they can do whatever they want and use a 'I'm a weak person' get-out-of-jail-free card).

I have a hard time believing that these people are that smart (in the first case) or that dumb (in the second case).

The only other option I can think of, is pure brain washing.  They have been conditioned and when combined with Morton's demon and Krueger-Dunning, we get characters like IBIG, AFDave, Floyd, and fundie Republicans.

I'm also at a loss, because I prefer to vote conservative because I am a Constitutionalist, but the theocratic world they invision scares the crap out of me.

Date: 2010/11/11 15:46:34, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Happy Birthday and thanks for many amusing sayings and anecdotes.

Date: 2010/11/11 17:30:39, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Doubt it... he's a coward.  He also wants an audience.

Date: 2010/11/11 17:54:59, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I know...

lightening finally hit him.  Or maybe his nose finally punched through the sheetrock and now he's stuck in his room.

Date: 2010/11/12 08:28:10, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I'm so depressed.  I really want to learn the secret maths that only JoeG and Dembski know to calculate CSI or  CSU or whatever it is.  I'm sure it will lead me to fame and fortune.

But JoeG runs away everytime I ask him.

I'm very sad.*



* As I type this my wife is rolling her eyes and throwing the remains of breakfast at me.

Date: 2010/11/13 11:00:24, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I submit:

"The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" by Gould

"I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution" Denis O. Lamoureux

"Science, Evolution, and Creationism" National Academy of Sciences

and

"Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism"
Philip Kitchner


there done... oh wait, these are already published... I wonder why he didn't read them??  [/sarcasm]

Date: 2010/11/15 22:03:33, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I still say there's a plant in the DI.  Someone is the ultimate poe by getting a job there and convincing them that these ideas are good ones.

"Hey, this looks like a discrimination case, we should sue."

Date: 2010/11/16 08:34:54, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 16 2010,07:52)
So, is this it?

IBelieveInGod declares defeat by slinking off and disappearing?

Louis is a roaring drunk?
(not that that has anything to do with the situation)

I guess so.  

What's with these creobots these days?  No stamina at all.  Heck AFDAve repeated his crap here for 6 months, probably longer, but I'm scared to delve that deep into ATBC.

Ah well, back to Amazon.

Date: 2010/11/16 12:39:23, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 16 2010,12:38)
Maybe the right will become disenchanted with the DI. It is obviously they're looking to fabricate something that isn't.

And 'the right' isn't?

These are the guys that think we're a Southern Baptist nation and Joe McCarthy was a great patriot.

Date: 2010/11/16 19:43:57, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Congrats!!

When my offspring was on the way, my wife insisted it was a girl... it wasn't.

Our two names were....

Kaylee Kiera
Rio Milan

Date: 2010/11/17 07:49:01, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (skeptic reborn @ Nov. 16 2010,23:29)
Hate to let a potentially promising thread just whimper and die.  So, do you guys require an irrational YECist to kick around or would a semi-rational theist do?

Nah, it's only fun if they're irrational.

On the other hand, adult discussions, with a real back-and-forth dialogue... I don't know if I've ever had one of those...

Date: 2010/11/17 11:43:37, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I guess that everyone has already heard that Dumbski will debate Christopher Hitchens in Plano, TX tomorrow.

Man, what I wouldn't give for tickets to that.

Date: 2010/11/17 15:46:50, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Steviepinhead @ Nov. 17 2010,15:45)
Heh.  Give her a day or three.

I haven't yet had a chance to work in typing instruction between feeding intervals (and other necessary maintenance)...

I guess that's OK.  As long as she knows how to find the area under a curve by the time she's five.

Date: 2010/11/17 18:39:10, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Hey Joe:  

One: I want a mathematical description of CSI, CSU, IC, whatever.  Keep in mind that I sit next to 8 mathematicians (3 with masters and 1 with a PhD (and another who's about to graduate with a PhD).  I can also get 3 people with PhDs in statistical analysis.  So don't worry your little head about the math.  I can take it.  If I can't I can get help.

Two:  Where's your answer to this:

Ask me a question about real science (not what you THINK (if that's even possible) and I'll provide you with so many citations, your pathetic little 486-66 will asplode.

hmmm... let me go ahead and start.

Evolution has been observed taking place in real world living organisms and documented doing so in peer reviewed scientific papers. From the literature on nylonase alone, we have this collection of scientific papers:

A New Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene (nylC) On Plasmid pOAD2 From A Flavobacterium sp. by Seiji Negoro, Shinji Kakudo, Itaru Urabe, and Hirosuke Okadam, Journal of Bacteriology, 174(12): 7948-7953 (December 1992)

A Plasmid Encoding Enzymes For Nylon Oligomer Degradation: Nucleotide Sequence And Analysis Of pOAD2 by Ko Kato, Kinya Ohtsuki, Yuji Koda, Tohru Maekawa, Tetsuya Yomo, Seiji Negoro and Itaru Urabe, Microbiology, 141: 2585-2590 (1995)

Biodegradation Of Nylon Oligomers by Seiji Negoro, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 54: 461-466 (26th May 2000)

Birth Of A Unique Enzyme From An Alternative Reading Frame Of The Pre-eEisted, Internally Repetitious Coding Sequence by Susumu Ohno, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 81: 2421-2425 (April 1984)

DNA-DNA Hybridization Analysis Of Nylon Oligomer-Degradative Plasmid pOAD2: Identification Of The DNA Region Analogous To The Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene by Seiji Negoro, Shunichi Nakamura and Hirosuke Okada, Journal of Bacteriology, 158(2): 419-424 (May 1984)

Emergence Of Nylon Oligomer Degradation Enzymes In Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO Through Experimental Evolution by Irfan J. Prijambada, Seiji Negoro, Tetsuya Yomo and Itaru Urabe, Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022 (May 1995)

Insertion Sequence IS6100 On Plasmid pOAD2, Which Degrades Nylon Oligomers by Ko Kato, Kinya Ohtsuki, Hiroyuki Mitsuda, Tetsuya Yomo, Seiji Negoro and Itaru Urabe, Journal of Bacteriology, 176(4): 1197-1200 (February 1994)

No Stop Codons In The Antisense Strands Of The Genes For Nylon Oligomer Degradation by Tetsuya Yomo, Itaru Urabe and Hirosuke Okada, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 89: 3780-3784 (May 1992)

Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene, nylC, On Plasmid pOAD2 From A Flavobacterium Strain Encodes Endo-Type 6-Aminohexanoate Oligomer Hydrolase: Purification And Characterisation Of The nylC Product by Shinji Kakudo, Seiji Negoro, Itaru Urabe and Hirosuke Okada, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 59(11): 3978-3980 (November 1993)

Plasmid-Determined Enzymatic Degradation Of Nylon Oligomers by Seiji Negoro, Tomoyasu Taniguchi, Masaharu Kanaoka, Hiroyuki Kimura and Hirosuke Okada, Journal of Bacteriology, 155(1): 22-31 (July 1983)

The nylonase enzyme did not appear in these bacteria until the 1980s. Indeed, Nylon itself, and the oligomers associated with it that these bacteria metabolise, did not exist in the environment until 1935, which means that there was no reason for bacteria to possess a capability to metabolise these substances before that date. Moreover, the mechanism by which the nylonase gene came into being is well known and documented - it was the result of a frameshift mutation that generated a complete new gene that did not previously exist. This is merely one of many instances of evolution being observed taking place - the landmark paper in the field to date is this one:

Historical Contingency And Evolution Of A Key Innovation In An Experimental Population Of Escherichia coli by Zachary D. Blount, Christina Z. Borland and Richard E. Lenski, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105(23): 7899-7906 (10th June 2008) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Quote

Blount, Borland & Lenski, 2008 wrote:

The role of historical contingency in evolution has been much debated, but rarely tested. Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions. No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these hypotheses in experiments that ‘‘replayed’’ evolution from different points in that population’s history. We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 × 1012 ancestral cells, nor among 9 × 1012 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations. This potentiating change increased the mutation rate to Cit+ but did not cause generalized hypermutability.
Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection.



Direct Experimental Tests Of Evolutionary Concepts

A Model For Divergent Allopatric Speciation Of Polyploid Pteridophytes Resulting From Silencing Of Duplicate-Gene Expression by Charles R.E. Werth and Michael D. Windham, American Naturalist, 137(4): 515-526 (April 1991) - DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL TO MATCH OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

A Molecular Reexamination Of Diploid Hybrid Speciation Of Solanum raphanifolium by David M. Spooner, Kenneth. J. Sytsma and James F. Smith, Evolution, 45(3): 757-764 - DOCUMENTATION OF AN OBSERVED SPECIATION EVENT

Cavefish As A Model System In Evolutionary Developmental Biology by William R. Jeffrey, Developmental Biology, 231:, 1-12 (1 Mar 2001) - contains experimental tests of hypotheses about eye evolution

Chromosome Evolution, Phylogeny, And Speciation Of Rock Wallabies, by G. B. Sharman, R. L. Close and G. M. Maynes, Australian Journal of Zoology, 37(2-4): 351-363 (1991) - DOCUMENTATION OF OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

Crystal Structure Of An Ancient Protein: Evolution By Conformational Epistasis by Eric A. Ortlund, Jamie T. Bridgham, Matthew R. Redinbo and Joseph W. Thornton, Science, 317: 1544-1548 (14 September 2007) - refers to the reconstruction of ancient proteins from extinct animals by back-tracking along the molecular phylogenetic trees and demonstrating that the proteins in question WORK

Evidence For Rapid Speciation Following A Founder Event In The Laboratory by James R. Weinberg Victoria R. Starczak and Danielle Jörg, Evolution 46: 1214-1220 (15th January 1992) - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Evolutionary Theory And Process Of Active Speciation And Adaptive Radiation In Subterranean Mole Rats, Spalax ehrenbergi Superspecies, In Israel by E. Nevo, Evolutionary Biology, 25: 1-125 - DOCUMENTATION OF OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

Experimentally Created Incipient Species Of Drosophila by Theodosius Dobzhansky & Olga Pavlovsky, Nature 230: 289 - 292 (2nd April 1971) - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Founder-Flush Speciation On Drosophila pseudoobscura: A Large Scale Experiment by Agustí Galiana, Andrés Moya and Francisco J. Alaya, Evolution 47: 432-444 (1993) EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Genetics Of Natural Populations XII. Experimental Reproduction Of Some Of the Changes Caused by Natural Selection by Sewall Wright & Theodosius Dobzkansky, Genetics, 31(2): 125-156 (1946) - direct experimental tests of natural selection mechanisms

Hedgehog Signalling Controls Eye Degeneration In Blind Cavefish by Yoshiyuki Yamamoto, David W. Stock and William R. Jeffery, Nature, 431: 844-847 (14 Oct 2004) - direct experimental test of theories about eye evolution and the elucidation of the controlling genes involved

Initial Sequencing Of The Chimpanzee Genome And Comparison With The Human Genome, The Chimpanzee Genome Sequencing Consortium (see paper for full list of 68 authors), Nature, 437: 69-87 (1 September 2005) - direct sequencing of the chimpanzee genome and direct comparison of this genome with the previously sequenced human genome, whereby the scientists discovered that fully twenty-nine percent of the orthologous proteins of humans and chimpanzees are IDENTICAL

Origin Of The Superflock Of Cichlid Fishes From Lake Victoria, East Africa by Erik Verheyen, Walter Salzburger, Jos Snoeks and Axel Meyer, Science, 300: 325-329 (11 April 2003) - direct experimental determination of the molecular phylogeny of the Lake Victoria Superflock, including IDENTIFYING THE COMMON ANCESTOR OF THE 350+ SPECIES IN QUESTION and NAMING THAT ANCESTOR as Haplochromis gracilior

Phagotrophy By A Flagellate Selects For Colonial Prey: A Possible Origin Of Multicellularity by Martin.E. Boraas, Dianne.B. Seale and Joseph .E. Boxhorn, Evolutionary Ecology 12(2): 153-164 (February 1998 ) - direct experimental test of hypotheses about the origins of multicellularity

Pollen-Mediated Introgression And Hybrid Speciation In Louisiana Irises by Michael L. Arnold, Cindy M. Buckner and Jonathan J. Robinson, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 88(4): 1398-1402 (February 1991) - OBSERVATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE

Protein Engineering Of Hydrogenase 3 To Enhance Hydrogen Production by Toshinari. Maeda, Viviana. Sanchez-Torres and Thomas. K. Wood, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 79(1): 77-86 (May 2008) - DIRECT EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION OF EVOLUTION IN THE LABORATORY TO PRODUCE A NEW BIOTECHNOLOGY PRODUCT

Resurrecting Ancient Genes: Experimental Analysis Of Extinct Molecules by Joseph W. Thornton, Nature Reviews: Genetics, 5: 366-375 (5 May 2004) - direct experimental reconstruction in the laboratory of ancient proteins from extinct animals

Sexual Isolation Caused By Selection For Positive And Negative Phototaxis And Geotaxis In Drosophila pseudoobscura by E. del Solar, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 56: 484-487 (1966) - direct experimental test of selection mechanisms and their implications for speciation

Speciation By Hybridisation In Heliconius Butterflies by Jesús Mavárez, Camilo A. Salazar, Eldredge Bermingham, Christian Salcedo, Chris D. Jiggins and Mauricio Linares, Nature, 441: 868-871 (15th June 2006) - DETERMINATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE, FOLLOWED BY LABOARTORY REPRODUCTION OF THAT SPECIATION EVENT, AND CONFIRMATION THAT THE LABORATORY INDIVIDUALS ARE INTERFERTILE WITH THE WILD TYPE INDIVIDUALS

Speciation By Hybridization In Phasmids And Other Insects By Luciano Bullini and Guiseppe Nascetti, Canadian Journal of Zoology 68(8): 1747-1760 (1990) - OBSERVATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE

The Gibbons Speciation Mechanism by S. Ramadevon and M. A. B. Deaken, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 145(4): 447-456 (1991) - DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL ACCOUNTING FOR OBSERVED INSTANCES OF SPECIATION

The Master Control Gene For Morphogenesis And Evolution Of The Eye by Walter J. Gehrig, Genes to Cells, 1: 11-15, 1996 - direct experimental test of hypotheses concerning eye evolution including the elucidation of the connection between the Pax6 gene and eye morphogenesis, and the experimental manipulation of that gene to control eye development

The Past As The Key To The Present: Resurrection Of Ancient Proteins From Eosinophils by Steven A. Benner, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA., 99(8): 4760-4761 (16 April 2002) - direct experimental reconstruction of ancient proteins from extinct animals

This list is by no means complete, because over eighteen thousand critically robust peer reviewed papers were published in evolutionary biology in 2007 alone. The number of papers published in the subject since Darwin first published The Origin of Species probably exceeds a million or so, if someone were ever to perform the requisite accounting.



As I recall, you have an issue with abiogensis.  First, conflating evolutionary theory with abiogenesis is not only wrong, not only scientifically invalid, but why, as a common creationist fabrication, it too is regarded here with scorn and derision.

As for self replicating systems, if you think scientists have no clue about the formation of these, the following scientific papers will disabuse you of that farcical notion:

A Self-Replicating Ligase Ribozyme by Natasha Paul & Gerald F. Joyce, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 99(20): 12733-12740 (1st October 2002)

A Self-Replicating System by T. Tjivuka, P. Ballester and J. Rebek Jr, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 112: 1249-1250 (1990)

Catalysis In Prebiotic Chemistry: Application To The Synthesis Of RNA Oligomers by James P. Ferris, Prakash C. Joshi, K-J Wang, S. Miyakawa and W. Huang, Advances in Space Research, 33: 100-105 (2004)

Cations As Mediators Of The Adsorption Of Nucleic Acids On Clay Surfaces In Prebiotic Environments by Marco Franchi, James P. Ferris and Enzo Gallori, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 33: 1-16 (2003)

Darwinian Evolution On A Chip by Brian M. Paegel and Gerald F. Joyce, Public Library of Science Biology, 6(4): e85 (April 2008)

Emergence Of A Replicating Species From An In Vitro RNA Evolution Reaction by Ronald R. Breaker and Gerald F. Joyce, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 91: 6093-6097 (June 1994)

Information Transfer From Peptide Nucleic Acids To RNA By Template-Directed Syntheses by Jürgen G. Schmidt, Peter E. Nielsen and Leslie E. Orgel, Nucleic Acids Research, 25(23): 4794-4802 (1997)

Ligation Of The Hairpin Ribozyme In cis Induced By Freezing And Dehydration by Sergei A. Kazakov, Svetlana V. Balatskaya and Brian H. Johnston, The RNA Journal, 12: 446-456 (2006)

Mineral Catalysis And Prebiotic Synthesis: Montmorillonite-Catalysed Formation Of RNA by James P. Ferris, Elements, 1: 145-149 (June 2005)

Montmorillonite Catalysis Of 30-50 Mer Oligonucleotides: Laboratory Demonstration Of Potential Steps In The Origin Of The RNA World by James P. Ferris, Origins of Life and Evolution of the biosphere, 32: 311-332 (2002)

Montmorillonite Catalysis Of RNA Oligomer Formation In Aqueous Solution: A Model For The Prebiotic Formation Of RNA by James P. Ferris and Gözen Ertem, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 115: 12270-12275 (1993)

Nucelotide Synthetase Ribozymes May Have Emerged First In The RNA World by Wentao Ma, Chunwu Yu, Wentao Zhang and Jiming Hu, The RNA Journal, 13: 2012-2019, 18th September 2007

Prebiotic Amino Acids As Asymmetric Catalysts by Sandra Pizzarello and Arthur L. Weber, Science, 303: 1151 (20 February 2004)

Prebiotic Chemistry And The Origin Of The RNA World by Leslie E. Orgel, Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 39: 99-123 (2004)

Prebiotic Synthesis On Minerals: Bridging The Prebiotic And RNA Worlds by James P. Ferris, Biological Bulletin, 196: 311-314 (June 1999)

Ribozymes: Building The RNA World by Gerald F. Joyce, Current Biology, 6(8): 965-967, 1996

RNA-Catalysed Nucleotide Synthesis by Peter J. Unrau and David P. Bartel, Nature, 395: 260-263 (17th September 1998)

RNA-Catalyzed RNA Polymerization: Accurate and General RNA-Templated Primer Extension by Wendy K. Johnston, Peter J. Unrau, Michael S. Lawrence, Margaret E. Glasner and David P. Bartel, Science, 292: 1319-1325, 18th May 2001

RNA-Directed Amino Acid Homochirality by J. Martyn Bailey, FASEB Journal (Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology), 12: 503-507 (1998)

RNA Evolution And The Origin Of Life by Gerald F. Joyce, Nature, 338: 217-224 (16th March 1989)

Self Replicating Systems by Volker Patzke and Günter von Kiedrowski, ARKIVOC 5: 293-310, 2007

Self-Organising Biochemical Cycles by Leslie E. Orgel, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 97(23): 12503-12507 (7th November 2000)

Self-Sustained Replication Of An RNA Enzyme by Tracey A. Lincoln and Gerald F. Joyce, ScienceExpress, DOI: 10.1126/science.1167856 (8th January 2009)

Sequence- And Regio-Selectivity In The Montmorillonite-Catalysed Synthesis Of RNA by Gözen Ertem and James P. Ferris, Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 30: 411-422 (2000)

Synthesis Of 35-40 Mers Of RNA Oligomers From Unblocked Monomers. A Simple Approach To The RNA World by Wenhua Huang and James P. Ferris, Chemical Communications of the Royal Society of Chemistry, 1458-1459 (2003)

Synthesis Of Long Prebiotic Oligomers On Mineral Surfaces by James P. Ferris, Aubrey R. Hill Jr, Rihe Liu and Leslie E. Orgel, Nature, 381: 59-61 (2nd May 1996)

The Antiquity Of RNA-Based Evolution by Gerald F. Joyce, Nature, 418: 214-221, 11th July 2002

The Case For An Ancestral Genetic System Involving Simple Analogues Of The Nucleotides by Gerald F. Joyce, Alan W. Schwartz, Stanley L. Miller and Leslie E. Orgel, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 84: 4398-4402 (July 1987)

The Descent of Polymerisation by Matthew Levy and Andrew D. Ellington, Nature Structural Biology, 8(7): 580-582, July 2001

The Origin And Early Evolution Of Life: Prebiotic Chemistry, The Pre-RNA World, And Time by Antonio Laczano and Stanley R. Miller, Cell, 85: 793-798 (14th June 1996)

The Origin Of Replicators And Reproducers by Eörs Szathmáry, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1689-1702 (11th September 2006)

The Roads To And From The RNA World[/i] by Jason P. Dworkin, Antonio Lazcano and Stanley L. Miller, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 222: 127-134 (2003)

Transcription And Translation In An RNA World by William R. Taylor, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Part B, 361: 1689-1702 (11th September 2006)

That's thirty-three scientific papers covering the emergence of self-replicating systems and their behaviour in a prebiotic environment. If you think this is a problem for scientists, then you obviously never paid attention in proper science classes.

Finally, I'll ask you, what is the shortest RNA chain that can catalyze metabolic and/or cellular functions.  Until you answer that... go away.

Until you have read everyone of the papers I present and explained with references to other peer-reviewed work why the paper is wrong, you have no argument.  You are just a sad little man with delusions of adequacy.
BTW: Remember, the challenge is SCIENTIFIC questions... not questions that you THINK are scientific.

Speaking, of which, why do you keep challenging us, when you can't man up and answer one simple question about ID?

Fuck off, Chicken Little.

Date: 2010/11/17 18:45:02, Link
Author: OgreMkV
As far as evo-devo, I'd suggest you get Dr. Carroll's book.  It's the best primer that I've seen for the lay person.  If you have something more specific than 'does it meet the promise', then I'll try to help.  But that's a little too generic.

Date: 2010/11/17 19:24:06, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 17 2010,19:10)
Seems like we won't see SR again, or at least until he finds a new sock...

Fair enough.  I can't imagine being so inane to get banned from this forum, so he must be really nuts.

Hmmm... is that an example of ID (Intelligent Decisions)?

Date: 2010/11/17 19:24:43, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 17 2010,19:21)
In short:  
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 17 2010,16:39)
"I got a royal flush in spades, GI Joe. Whadda *you* got?"

Nice.

Funny part... he called my all in with Jack high.

Date: 2010/11/17 21:30:42, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Best evidence that God doesn't exist and ID doesn't work... their support team is AWFUL.

I mean really, if you were the omnipotent creator of the entire freaking universe... surely you could find some decent help out of the 7 billion people on this planet.

If ID worked, surely someone with actual knowledge, training, and a brain would be involved in it (other than milking the rubes (like Joe and IBIG) for their cash.

I just imagine poor Joe, sitting in his momma's basement with a cheap bottle of wine (with a screw top) trying to save up for Dembski's next book and praying that his momma will let him borrow enough cash for a Greyhound ticket to get to Plano tomorrow.

Date: 2010/11/18 08:32:32, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 18 2010,06:15)
Ummm I wasn't fighting.

IOW you are an imbecile.

This is what you choose to respond to?  

I've asked several questions about ID and the math and provided a list of research articles that I would be perfectly willing to discuss with you.

OK, well, you know where to find me if you want to man up and show some courage.  Defend your beliefs man.

Date: 2010/11/18 09:41:29, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I can't get the thing to work... of course, I'm at work.  I hope someone is keeping good notes.

Date: 2010/11/18 10:09:12, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Yeah, I know (sigh). But it's still the cliche, at least for now.

Date: 2010/11/18 10:57:32, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Please, please let this be posted on youtube.

Date: 2010/11/18 19:14:59, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (REC @ Nov. 18 2010,15:59)
Their website says an archive video will be up by Mon, Nov. 22.

http://www.pcawebcast.com/2010debate/

hmmm/  Christian sponsored debate with a full load of Christian attendees with a biased Christian Moderator... and (from what I've seen) the Christian looked like a moron.

I won't be putting any money on that being up by Monday.

Date: 2010/11/19 07:02:29, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 19 2010,05:33)
Joe:
   
Quote
If I am involved in a Coirt case about ID vs the ToE your experts are going to have to answer all those questions you assholes have been avoiding.

And the best part is no one will be able to pin any religious motivation on me.

For me it is just a matter of time- once my kid gets to HS I will make sure this goes to Court.

Link

I didn't know goats went to high school

Date: 2010/11/19 08:39:16, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 19 2010,07:47)
Thought is hard work, occasionally unpleasant, typically frowned upon or unrewarded, and definitely unfashionable. People want simple answers in nice packages so they can get on with their day. Good luck to 'em, nowt wrong with that sayeth I. But let's not pretend even for one fucking second it has any bearing on reality or the attempt to discover what that reality might be as best we can.

Quote of the year, IMO.

Date: 2010/11/19 14:55:06, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2010,14:25)
Brand new tard!

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....or.html

 
Quote
Snowball Earth- Evotard Evidence for a Global Flood!
-
Snowball Earth is generally accepted to have ended about 650 million years ago.

And seeing that snow is water- according to evotards- then that means there is evidence for a global flood.

Any questions?


Ah yes, the 'generally accepted' days of Noah 650 million years ago when it rained snowed got really cold for 40 days and 40 nights several million years.

edited.

Wait... did Joe actually learn something?  Holy crap!!!

He really learned that snow and ice and hail are all water.  

Who says he's incapable of learning?  It only took, what, 25-30 years to learn that ice and water are the same thing.

Another 3-4 centuries and he may be able to handle that populations evolve and not individuals or that 4000 < 650,000,000.

Date: 2010/11/20 09:37:05, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Actually a good question.

Hey Joe, what's the specified complexity or CSI, or CSU-Miami or whatever of "ice" compared with "water" and "hail" and "snow"?

hmmm.... it appears water has more BFG than ice, which actually makes sense since a liquid is more random than a solid.

Incontrovertible proof of IDID*

Indecipherable Decision from Intelligent Doofus.

Date: 2010/11/20 14:55:07, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Another Amazon discussion

Brent seems to have moved over here and is asserting all the things that he got hammered on in the other thread.  I'd appreciate a read through of my latest reply (disecting what is wrong with his statement)

Thanks

Date: 2010/11/20 20:33:33, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Reed @ Nov. 20 2010,20:23)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 20 2010,07:37)
Actually a good question.

Hey Joe, what's the specified complexity or CSI, or CSU-Miami or whatever of "ice" compared with "water" and "hail" and "snow"?

hmmm.... it appears water has more BFG than ice, which actually makes sense since a liquid is more random than a solid.

Incontrovertible proof of IDID*

Indecipherable Decision from Intelligent Doofus.

And what does it mean that the situation is reversed in French ? Proof God teh duhsigner is an Anglo ?

If it's not King James English, then it's heresy!

Date: 2010/11/20 23:00:22, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 20 2010,22:56)
For a guy who likes to use definitions--however inappropriately--as evidence, he might try buying a dictionary.

Quote
I didn't see any light, just the evidence, and that was back in the 70s. And the deeper I dig the more it is life all the way down, when it comes to biology.


So after nearly 40 years of study, Joe has come to the conclusion that when it comes to the study of life, life is where it's at?  And he thinks we believe schools let him teach seminars....

Maybe he's just know figured out that Biology is the study of life.

Is that two things he's learned.  Dang, the dude is on a roll... or at least a biscuit.

Date: 2010/11/21 08:03:12, Link
Author: OgreMkV
What is it with engineers and science denial?

Date: 2010/11/21 16:35:20, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Nov. 21 2010,16:30)
Quote
Dang, the dude is on a roll... or at least a biscuit.


Mais pas de croissant.  He'd insist on having a Freedom Bun instead.  (eyeroll)

When my Cub is old enough to worry about such matters, I shall definitely have to reference the Joey--any and all candidates for significant other must exceed him in reading comprehension and logic.

No, you're right.  I must set the bar higher...

The MadPanda, FCD

I was gonna say...

You should set the bar such that, if Joey was Earth, then the bar should be somewhere near the edge of the known universe.

Date: 2010/11/22 10:11:34, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 22 2010,09:37)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 22 2010,04:58)
Gary, your critical review shows up for me as the third "most helpful" review on the main book page, which seems like a good thing.

Thanks for your encouragement, Wes (and the link to young Dembski). And, thanks also to the folks who liked my review of Meyer. The review of "Signature in the Cell" does seem to have crawled back to the front page. (It received another "unhelpful" vote as I typed this).

Creationists have also buried other negative reviews of such trash as Rana and Ross, "Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off," and Walter Brown's "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood." I'd like to see them back up on the front page for those books, as well. So, they are a bit lower on the same link above, if you are inclined to read them.

Thanks.  I read through your list of reviewed books and have added half of them to my wish list.

I already have the Dresden books.

Date: 2010/11/22 10:59:39, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Oh, I love this:

Quote
The problem of evil can therefore be reformulated as the following argument:

Premise 1: Since God is good, he wants to destroy evil.

Premise 2: Since God is all-powerful, he can destroy evil.

Premise 3: Evil is not yet destroyed.

Conclusion: Therefore God will eventually destroy evil.



Premise 1: Since I am empathic, I want to do good.
Premise 2: Since I am smart, I can figure out how to destroy evil.
Premise 3: Evil is not yet destroyed.

Conclusion: Someday, I will destroy Evil!

Yes, fame and fortune will soon be mine for destroying evil.


This is even more shallow than most attempts to deal with TPoE.

Date: 2010/11/22 11:01:41, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Here's another

Quote
But without an objective moral standard, which atheism cannot deliver,


Hey Dr. Demsbki, are all religions exactly alike and do they all have exactly the same moral principles?

No?

Then religion can't deliver an objective moral standard either.  duh

Date: 2010/11/22 13:22:30, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Not on all of them, they weren't present on the list of reviews.  

For the ones I wanted, yes.

Date: 2010/11/22 13:51:11, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 22 2010,12:59)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 22 2010,08:11)
Thanks.  I read through your list of reviewed books and have added half of them to my wish list.

Did you happen to use the "vote" buttons?

I was bored so I went back and read all the reviews again.  Liking them and read the comments and downchecking/upchecking them as I felt the need.

I am pleased that I found no argument I couldn't muster a defense against.

Date: 2010/11/22 15:59:11, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Amadan @ Nov. 22 2010,15:10)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2010,17:55)
Finally got Surface Detail, Iain M. Banks latest Culture novel.

Since the book is really about heaven and hell in technological societies, I thought this passage very telling.

 
Quote
Almost every developing species had a creation myth buried somewhere in its past, even if by the time they'd become space-faring it was no more than a quaint and dusty irrelevance (though, granted, some were downright embarrassing).  Talking utter drivel about thunderclouds having sex with the sun, lonely old sadists inventing something to amuse themselves with, a big fish spawning the stars, planets, moons and your own ever-so-special People - or whatever other nonsense had wandered into the most likely feverish mind of the enthusiast who had come up with the idea in the first place - at least showed you were interested in trying to provide an explanation for the world around you, and so was generally held to be a promising first step towards coming up with the belief system that provably worked and genuinely did produce miracles: reason, science and technology.


I dare any religious person to defy that reason, science and technology are provably better than whatever beliefs that they hold to.

JUst read it. Wocha think?

I haven't finished it yet.  I have a 3 year-old, so my reading time is limited to those tiny periods between when he goes to sleep and when I go to sleep.

So far thought, it's creepy as hell.

I can actually imagine that once we get to that level of tech, a theocratic country/religion/organization creating a hell to prove to its adherents that it is possible... therefore god... or something.

It would be very disturbing to me to entrust anyone/thing with my brain state for the rest of eternity.  Once you die and your brain state starts running in a simulation, then you are at the whims of the owner of the sim.  He could go from heaven to hell in a heartbeat.

This is the best evidence that I've been able to come up with that we are not presently living in such a simulation.

Date: 2010/11/23 12:36:08, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Badger3k @ Nov. 23 2010,11:59)
From Dispatches from the Culture Wars, the quote by Dembski (this is all of Ed's post, but go there for the traffic and comments):

Quote
rom William Dembski:

Is Darwin's theory true? All the geniuses of science tell us it is true. In fact, they tell us that only the ignorant and stupid masses reject Darwinism. But genius has lost a lot of credibility in our day. The geniuses on Wall Street and in D.C. have made a mess of the economy.
Logic doesn't seem to be Dembski's strong suit. "Smart people have been wrong so stop listening to smart people" is hardly a compelling argument.


Didn't DrDrD basically imply that he isn't smart, so we should listen to him?  That's pretty much how I read it.

Sounds like an own-goal from the man with two Ph.D.s and a master's in a third field.

On the other hand, he's not smart enough to recognize it, so...

Date: 2010/11/25 08:03:36, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2010,05:14)
Quote
gpuccio: Behe is a true hero. Like all true heroes, he is simple and works without any obstentation, having the courage to do that from an official position in the Academy, with all the possible hostility we can imagine, and unfortunately see.

 
Quote
The “refutation” of IC in the flagellum is one of the most ridiculous and shameful arguments of darwinists. After Behe had the courage of stating what should have been obvious to any rightly thinking man (that complex machines are made of independent parts which do different things, and that those parts must all be present and working together for the complex function to be available), and of applying that concept to biology, darwinists have gone frenzy.

They have resorted to the most absurd arguments to counter what is evidently true. They have invented cooption and given it miraculous powers, they have searched desperately for homologies and inverted chronological orders, they have thrown in scaffolds and whatever.

But the point made by Behe remains simply and wonderfully true: irreducibly complex machines are designed.


Yeah, co-option was invented solely to refute Behe...

One has to wonder, in the whole history of ID has any ID proponent ever actually been wrong about anything?

Difficult to achieve I guess when your claims are essentially and by definition not testable.

My first post at UD.  I'm so proud... or is it bored?

Quote
gpuccio:  I don't know if you are aware, but the bacterial flagella retains its excretory abilities, even while being used for movement.  This gives extensive evidence that the flagellum was co-opted from the TypeIII excretory system.

Here's a link to the paper that shows this if you're interested: www.pnas.orgcgidoi10.1073pnas.0700266104

What's really fascinating is that in most types of flagella, the 'motor' will function perfectly well with half of the proteins that make it missing.  

Furthermore, flagellum-specific ATPase FliI and the
b(beta)-subunit of ATP synthase (which rotate when ADP is converted to ATP) are statistically similar proteins.

Finally, I would like to ask, which flagellal system is Dr. Behe (and you guys) talking about?  The paper I cited above contains 41 unique flagella systems.  Some of which are missing proteins that other require to function.  The article I cited describes one bacterial species with two totally different flagella.  There are also non-bacterial flagella that are nothing like bacterial flagella.

Thanks and Happy Thanksgiving
Ogre

Date: 2010/11/25 08:12:15, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Hey ogre- you are an equivocating fuck, buddy.

"Evolution" isn't being debated, YEC and ID are OK with speciation and ID is OK with universal common descent.

Neither evidence for speciation nor evidence for UCD is evidence for any mechanism.

So perhaps you can find just ONE peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates an accumulation of genetic accidents, ie blind, undirected chemical processes, can construct a functional multi-part system.

As for your abiogenesis pap- it looks like it takes quite a bit of engineering to get those results- the first paper is all about engineering the ribozyme- Joyce and Lincoln engineered their replicating RNAs.

Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.

You're ab-so-fucking-lutly correct.  ID is the discussion.

So where's the Evidence?
Where's the Mechanism?
Where's that math you said I couldn't do?*

Thanks for painting yourself into a corner dummy.  Now, whenever you say ANYTHING about evolution, then we're going to bring this quote up and berate you at length for being to stupid to remember what you've already said.

Finally, you why no one has bothered to refute ID in the literature.  Because they don't feel like wasting their time on a useless, hand-waving, vacuous statement that has as much connection to reality as my grandmother did to the USSR submarine forces.

ID isn't refuted, because there's nothing to refute.  You have to present a hypothesis, data, etc before it can be refuted.  So run along and go play with your little friends, while the adults actually do useful work.

Thanks
bye bye now


*Probably because I actually know how to do math.

Date: 2010/11/25 08:13:42, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.

Guess reading isn't a useful skill to having a high IQ (snicker).

Hey, Joe just pulled a Behe.  "I've never read them, but I know they don't refute what I'm saying."

Date: 2010/11/25 10:05:09, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,09:41)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,08:13)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.

Guess reading isn't a useful skill to having a high IQ (snicker).

Hey, Joe just pulled a Behe.  "I've never read them, but I know they don't refute what I'm saying."

I read the papers assface.

They do not support your claims nor your position.

Perhaps, since you read all of them, you could explain why the Orgel, Miller paper does not describe exactly what you claim is impossible?

Joe, why do you lie?  You know you never read these papers.  How do I know you lie, because these papers do support my position.

So, show me in detail, why the Orgel, Miller paper cannot work.  Be specific.  Use examples from the paper and other peer-reviewed work (or basic organic chemistry).

Thanks


Actually... all this doesn't matter.  It's YOUR theory of ID that you have to support.  

Again you are cowardly trying to deflect attention away from the fact that there isn't any support from ID.

Date: 2010/11/25 10:07:36, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,10:03)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 25 2010,10:00)
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,15:41)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,08:13)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,07:58)
Not one paper deals with blind, undirected chemical processes producing anything.

Guess reading isn't a useful skill to having a high IQ (snicker).

Hey, Joe just pulled a Behe.  "I've never read them, but I know they don't refute what I'm saying."

I read the papers assface.

They do not support your claims nor your position.

Ok Joe, if that's the case then you won't mind going into precise detail about why that is.

Please, with examples and references, be as specific as you possibly can.

Thanks.

Louis

No Louis why don't YOU go into detail on how they support your position.

Please use examples and references and be as specific as you can.

Sorry Joe, you claim that they are wrong.  You claim that you are smarter than every person who actually does real science.

You have an extraordinary claim... you show it.  We're not doing you work for you.

Why don't you show us that math that you claimed was beyond me?*

Why don't you show that you know what you're talking about instead of be an insulting ass.


* Oh wait, I know, because it doesn't exist.

Date: 2010/11/25 10:59:09, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Joe is immune to reason.  I really don't know what his deal is.

He doesn't claim to be a Christian, which is odd for a ID supporter.

So the only way to figure out if ID works is to show the evidence that supports it... which Joe is scared to do.

He still refuses to show the math... and I've been asking this for months.  His one response was 'you're too stupid to understand'.  

I also don't understand the papers showing show loop quantum gravity is a better choice than M-brane theory, but that doesn't stop Physicists from publishing them.

IOW, Joe, I have  better chance of getting ID support out of my cat's litterbox than from you.

Date: 2010/11/25 11:14:12, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Joe G @ Nov. 25 2010,11:02)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2010,10:59)
Joe is immune to reason.  I really don't know what his deal is.

He doesn't claim to be a Christian, which is odd for a ID supporter.

So the only way to figure out if ID works is to show the evidence that supports it... which Joe is scared to do.

He still refuses to show the math... and I've been asking this for months.  His one response was 'you're too stupid to understand'.  

I also don't understand the papers showing show loop quantum gravity is a better choice than M-brane theory, but that doesn't stop Physicists from publishing them.

IOW, Joe, I have  better chance of getting ID support out of my cat's litterbox than from you.

How can I be afraid of doing something that I have already done?

I cannot force you to come to my blog and read it.

And I cannot force you to get "No Free Lunch" and look into the math.

But it is all there and all you have is to ignore it as if your wilfull ignorance is meaningful discourse.

I went to your blog dumbass.

You're entire 'math' based argument was

'Stoopid' has more letters than 'Stupid' and is therefore more functionally accurate or some BS like that.

It's just like what remains of your pathetic life... wanking.  

IOW (cause i know how much you love that phrase): You and your pathetic attempts to support and unsupportable position are irrelevant.

Date: 2010/11/26 12:14:36, Link
Author: OgreMkV
hmmm... everyone is ignoring my post, it has a link to a peer-reviewed article... I wonder why everyone is ignoring it...

Date: 2010/11/26 15:07:54, Link
Author: OgreMkV
So Joey, which has more information 30 minutes of a G.W. Bush speech or 30 minutes of white noise?

Date: 2010/11/26 15:09:33, Link
Author: OgreMkV
What is it defending religion all of a sudden?  Are they getting the idea that most of the population thinks its a scam?

Anyway, Hitchens and a few others did this same debate on intelligence squared a few years ago.  The Christians lost their shirts.

Date: 2010/11/26 16:22:47, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I don't want to threadjack, but to wet the appatite for Blair/Hitchens:

Hitchens/Robinson Morals of Atheism

I would have mentioned that monkeys also seem to appreciate the divine, have empathy for others, and similar traits that Robinson implies only humans have.

I also would have said that all we are is emergent behavior that has acquired to realize that we are nothing more than emergent behavior.  Empathy is an emergent behavior in many animal species (some might go so far as to say "less so in humans than some other animals").  And that, not a morality (universal or otherwise) is what we derive the desire to not commit acts that would be socially frowned upon.

Finally, I would have mentioned that the society in which one lives much more determines morality than any innate or universal morality.

Date: 2010/11/26 17:18:38, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 26 2010,16:58)
Apparently the same "thing" in different states is different "things", as long as we have a word for it.

So "magma" isn't "rock", 'cause we have different words for it, but "molten lead" is still "lead".

Doofus.

Infidel heretic.

"molten lead" has more letters, so has both more information and (since it gives a state) more complex specificity than "lead".

Geez, what do those evolutionists teach you in chemistry?

Oh yeah you <insert expletive of choice here>.

Date: 2010/11/27 10:52:56, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Transcript

For those that missed it... like me.

Date: 2010/11/27 16:51:39, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 27 2010,14:22)
That "graffiti" sounds like somebody confused "psychic" with "psychotic". Well, with only a two letter difference, I supposed it's an easy mistake for some to make.

Henry

Does psychotic have more specified complexity then?

Date: 2010/11/28 17:49:18, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Amadan @ Nov. 22 2010,15:10)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2010,17:55)
Finally got Surface Detail, Iain M. Banks latest Culture novel.

Since the book is really about heaven and hell in technological societies, I thought this passage very telling.

 
Quote
Almost every developing species had a creation myth buried somewhere in its past, even if by the time they'd become space-faring it was no more than a quaint and dusty irrelevance (though, granted, some were downright embarrassing).  Talking utter drivel about thunderclouds having sex with the sun, lonely old sadists inventing something to amuse themselves with, a big fish spawning the stars, planets, moons and your own ever-so-special People - or whatever other nonsense had wandered into the most likely feverish mind of the enthusiast who had come up with the idea in the first place - at least showed you were interested in trying to provide an explanation for the world around you, and so was generally held to be a promising first step towards coming up with the belief system that provably worked and genuinely did produce miracles: reason, science and technology.


I dare any religious person to defy that reason, science and technology are provably better than whatever beliefs that they hold to.

JUst read it. Wocha think?

All I have to say about the ending it What The Fucking, Goat-Humping, Sheep-Raping, Sexual Encounter With a Three Week Dead Sperm Whale Was That?>!??!?!?!?!?!?!?

Zakelwe was before the Iridian War, that was like 2000+ years ago.  

Crap, now I have to go read all the damn things again.

Date: 2010/11/29 07:05:49, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Amadan @ Nov. 29 2010,01:39)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 28 2010,23:49)
 
Quote (Amadan @ Nov. 22 2010,15:10)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2010,17:55)
Finally got Surface Detail, Iain M. Banks latest Culture novel.

Since the book is really about heaven and hell in technological societies, I thought this passage very telling.

     
Quote
Almost every developing species had a creation myth buried somewhere in its past, even if by the time they'd become space-faring it was no more than a quaint and dusty irrelevance (though, granted, some were downright embarrassing).  Talking utter drivel about thunderclouds having sex with the sun, lonely old sadists inventing something to amuse themselves with, a big fish spawning the stars, planets, moons and your own ever-so-special People - or whatever other nonsense had wandered into the most likely feverish mind of the enthusiast who had come up with the idea in the first place - at least showed you were interested in trying to provide an explanation for the world around you, and so was generally held to be a promising first step towards coming up with the belief system that provably worked and genuinely did produce miracles: reason, science and technology.


I dare any religious person to defy that reason, science and technology are provably better than whatever beliefs that they hold to.

JUst read it. Wocha think?

All I have to say about the ending it What The Fucking, Goat-Humping, Sheep-Raping, Sexual Encounter With a Three Week Dead Sperm Whale Was That?>!??!?!?!?!?!?!?

Zakelwe was before the Iridian War, that was like 2000+ years ago.  

Crap, now I have to go read all the damn things again.

It all felt either a bit thrown together or something. A  few good ideas (and ship names!) but a bit of a mish-mash.  I preferred Matter.

My personal favorite was Excession, closely followed by player of games.  

Surface detail was good, but I agree about the ending.  It was kind of 'crap, I'm tired of writing this and here, I'm done.'

Date: 2010/11/29 08:16:18, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I heard about it a few years ago and contacted 5-6 of the 'judges'.  Only 2 responded to me and one of them had no idea what I was talking about.  The other turned out to be some kind of engineer who was a creationist.

Date: 2010/11/29 08:41:35, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Wait, so this IDiot is saying that evolution occurred by a non-Darwinian mechanism?

And that the flagellum does what it's supposed to do, except when it does something else, but it's supposed to do that to?

How do they live with themselves?

Date: 2010/11/29 09:23:34, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Is it actually worth replying?  I'm not so sure I want to get in the middle of that circle jerk.

Date: 2010/11/29 09:35:57, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Nevermind.  I posted what I wrote and am done with them.  I just don't care to go into the lions den.  

As long as they stay in their own living rooms, I don't care who holds the lease.

My last post... probably soon to be deleted.

Quote
First, Sorry for the confusion about my nick.  My normal nick is OgreMkV, but that was taken so I used another one.  

First of all, Joseph, what do you think my position is?  I'm curious because I never stated it.  

gpuccio, thank you for the detailed reply.  I'll try to cover what I'm aware of.

First, let me point out that of those 24 'core proteins' even some of those can be removed and the flagella still function.  For example, MotB can be knocked out and MotA and additional proteins can take over and still provide both movement and export.

You said:
<blockquote>First of all, two proteins can share a non random homology (and in the paper they used a very unspecific threshold, 10^-4), for functional reasons, and not necessarily for common descent</blockquote>

But the value measured, the e-value, is the measure of the statistical significance of the BLAST result.  For example, a hit with an E-value of 1.0 implies that one hit with a score equal to or better than the hit being scored would be expected at random from a sequence library search.

The e-value used in this study was 0.0001.  Which means that only 1 in 10,000 hits would be random.  Other hits (as shown in the study) would be statistically significant and therefore related.

Which brings us to the Type III secretory system.  

As shown by both the BLAST study and the knockout study.  Even if some of the core proteins of the flagella are removed, such that the flagella stops moving, it can still function as a secretory system (which it does even if it moving).

The implication of this is that the flagella is secondarily related to movement, not primarily.

Finally, let me ask a question.  You said

<blockquote>IOWs, the current core of flagellar proteins could well have originated form one or more ancestors, but I am sure that there is no credible evidence that that may have happened though a darwinian mechanism</blockquote>

So, you accept that common descent is statistically likely in this case (just to be clear, we're talking about the Type III secretory system and the bacterial flagellum).  What other mechanism would produce those results? Intellgent Design holds that these systems are unique and not subject to evolution, therefore cannot be descended from a common ancestor.

So, from what has been said and Dr. Behe has said: My understanding is that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex.  There are some core proteins of the flagellum that could be considered IC, but only in those flagella that use those proteins.  And base on what gpuccio says, the proteins that are core to the flagellum can be descended from a common ancestor.

This, of course, only applies to flagellates in Domain Eubacteria.  flagellates in Kingdom Animalia and Domain Archebacteria use completly different structures, proteins and systems.

Finally, this'll be my second and last post here.  Real science is just much cooler than arguing with you guys.  There's only a limited amount of time in the day and I doubt wasting it on you is worth it.

Date: 2010/11/29 09:49:40, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 29 2010,09:15)
Poor Joe is attention starved.

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....on.html

When I claim "You've never calculated the CSI of anything, nor has any other IDer." he replies

Quote
Unfortunately for RichTard Hughes I am exactly correct and have provided a reference to support my claim:


But 'forgets' to include any math or an example. whoopsy.

then we have

Quote
And Richtard- thanks for staying away. That makes my blog a better place. Traffic here has picked up in the past week...


Yes, your last 3 posts have a total of 2 comments. That's nearly a whole comment per post. Well done!

Most tools I found can't count Intelligent Reasoning's traffic as it is too low, but this one

http://bizinformation.org/us/www.intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com

suggests under 10 visitors a day. And I'm probably 4 of them.

Richard, you are an enabler.

Date: 2010/11/29 18:48:27, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Obviously, I'm slightly biased, but I think Hitchens won both debates.

Dembski... well...

Blair, at least has sincerity and is actively 'working' in Africa.  However, he fails to grasp the dichotomy that Hitchens kept pointing out.

If religion wasn't telling those people to not use condoms and that having AIDS was better in God's sight than using condoms... then all the great work that the religion does in Africa wouldn't be needed in the first place.

I submit that people who do good works would do them regardless of religion (or lack thereof).  Perhaps there would be fewer people, because without the fear of hell, some of them would sit at home instead of going to Zimbabwe or something.  

I'd rather have an honest jerk than a hypocritical nice person.

Date: 2010/11/29 22:41:23, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Yeah, that's me.  8 and 18.

Like I said, I'm not so sure I want to beard the lion in its den.  If it comes out, I've my sniper rifle ready, but as long as it stays in there, I don't care.

As for as Joseph... pish tosh.  I will never be intimidated by anyone on the internet.  I live in Texas, if he ever tries to find me or my family, I'm perfectly happy putting many, many 9mm holes in his forehead.*

I can't believe that post 18 stands though.  I guess that they can't see their own goal there.  :D

*Hey Joe, My real name is Kevin McCarthy and I live in Round Rock.  I fucking dare you to come start some shit with me.  I recently got a 90 round drum mag for my AR-15 and would love to see how fast I can go through it.

Date: 2010/11/30 00:14:01, Link
Author: OgreMkV
The thing about religion, at least from my neck of the woods (The Bible Belt)... is that so many people grow up with religion.  They see all the good things that 'the church' does and anything bad is 'the person'.

So many people grow up this way that any positive support that they uncritically accept it.  Fortunately, many of the my generation are walking away from the church of their parents, mainly because it isn't relevant and obviously so.  The average age in my old church was 54.  There were multiple Sunday school classes for the over 80 crowd.  I'm hopeful that our children will grow up respectful of the church... in the same way you respect that crazy guy down the street.

While I enjoyed Hitchens, I would have said some other things that may have emphasized the point more.

Date: 2010/11/30 08:53:24, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Maya, I totally agree.  I'll fight them to logical death in public...

Date: 2010/11/30 10:06:17, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Found this today.  You guys have probably read it, but here's the link:

Irreducible Incoherence

This is a well written article that describes exactly how Behe et. al. shift between definitions of IC to confuse the issue and prevent criticism.

Date: 2010/11/30 11:40:14, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Maya @ Nov. 30 2010,11:09)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 30 2010,08:53)
Maya, I totally agree.

I don't do the flirty giggle thing, but if I did that line would earn it.

 
Quote
I'll fight them to logical death in public...

Ah, if only you'd left out the "logical" I'd suspect you were the mythical "perfect man."

Did you see my post about what would happen to Joseph if he decided to visit?

No, I'm not perfect, but I make an awesome chocolate banana bread... and I clean the kitchen when I'm done.

Date: 2010/11/30 12:19:32, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (dvunkannon @ Nov. 30 2010,12:03)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 29 2010,23:41)
*Hey Joe, My real name is Kevin McCarthy and I live in Round Rock.  I fucking dare you to come start some shit with me.  I recently got a 90 round drum mag for my AR-15 and would love to see how fast I can go through it.

Since we're on the subject, my real name is David vun Kannon, and I live in Bergenfield, New Jersey, a lot closer to Keene, NH. If Joe wants to take a swing at Nakashima, he can drop by any time. But he hurt his back getting clear of the action while falling off a perfectly good bar stool, so I doubt Joe will want to dance with a man any time soon.

Was that when Joe was paratrooper training... or when he was in ninja class... I forget that level of detail easily.

Date: 2010/11/30 12:45:12, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Yeah, but Louis, I'm from Texas.  My grandad was a cowboy... not sheep or goats like those weener brits have, real, big-ass, rip-your-intestines-out cows.

Furthermore, not only can we defeat the moronic hoards of UD with logic and evidence, we can all piss farther than they can too.

So there.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled UD-WTF?  Am I reading the lastest correctly when he thinks that massive population growth with a shitty standard of living is a good thing?

Has he been to Africa... or SE Texas?

Date: 2010/11/30 16:47:44, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 30 2010,16:08)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 30 2010,22:04)
[SNIP Jingo]

USA! USA! USA! USA!

Hark! The Eternal Refrain!

Having lived in, loved in and indeed loved you fair nation I know precisely how to silence an American regarding matters military:

Vietnam.*

I'll grant you it's a cheap shot, but hey, all's fair in love, war, and pointless nationalist claptrap.

Louis

*Cue denial, comments about how they cheated, comments about how you really won.....

We just went to Vietnam to save the French from getting their ass kicked... again.  And what happened, the French left us hanging... again.

Who would voluntarily build a tunnel to connect their own motherland with France?

Date: 2010/11/30 17:22:52, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Truce?

Don't make fun of our guns and we won't make fun you being so close to France.

Besides, there's so much more tard to make fun of.

Date: 2010/11/30 19:23:42, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (rossum @ Nov. 30 2010,18:18)
Quote (Maya @ Nov. 30 2010,15:37)
Yes indeed.  Shooting a large can of beans with a rifle to make the small can of tomato sauce you balanced on it fly up and then laughing at your brother who missed the flying can with a shotgun would be wrong.

Specially for Maya:



The Hello Kitty AK-47.

Me, I prefer the "Motha' T".  :)

rossum

I'm hoping that this is fake.  The 'My Little Pony' AR-14 says that it's capable of 3 round burst fire.

I don't know many 12 year old girls with a class three license.

Date: 2010/11/30 22:27:45, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 30 2010,22:20)
Joe seems to be arguing that you don't have more information with two copies of a dictionary than you do with just one. Trivially, though, you have the information of how many copies there are. That will increase as log_2(n) with increasing n. (I think we covered that in Elsberry and Shallit 2003.)

Given a species with n base pairs, sometimes a tetraploid daughter species can be produced that has 2n base pairs. If there is no change in information for that case, as it appears Joe argues, would we expect that parent and daughter species of that sort are morphologically indistinguishable?

These creationists (including Joe, Dembski, Meyer, et. al.) all have two major problems...

1) They don't know anything about Biology.  So they are forced to develop these analogies that really have no bearing on the situation.  Now, don't get me wrong, I've used analogies while teaching, it helps... but one really shouldn't try to overturn 150 years of science with a poor analogy.*

2) They do not, ever, take what they say through the logical continuation.  They say whatever it takes to make the current argument go away and wonder why we turn it around and slam them on it later.  Like Joseph at UD... his argument against me was that bacterial flagella could be descended from a common ancestor... wait... what?  Isn't that what we've been saying all along?




* I'm reminded of AFDave's argument that the biggest difference between a watch and a cell was that both are complex.**

** Yes, that's what he said... the DIFFERENCE was that BOTH were complex.

Date: 2010/12/01 08:27:20, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 01 2010,07:28)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 29 2010,09:15)
Poor Joe is attention starved.

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....on.html

When I claim "You've never calculated the CSI of anything, nor has any other IDer." he replies

 
Quote
Unfortunately for RichTard Hughes I am exactly correct and have provided a reference to support my claim:


But 'forgets' to include any math or an example. whoopsy.

then we have

 
Quote
And Richtard- thanks for staying away. That makes my blog a better place. Traffic here has picked up in the past week...


Yes, your last 3 posts have a total of 2 comments. That's nearly a whole comment per post. Well done!

Most tools I found can't count Intelligent Reasoning's traffic as it is too low, but this one

http://bizinformation.org/us/www.intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com

suggests under 10 visitors a day. And I'm probably 4 of them.

My blog's stat page counter says 200 visits per day.

Over 4,000 last month.

Go figure...

But Joe,

2000 of those hits are Richard, and 2000 are your mommy.

Yeah, cheap shot, but it's not like there's any science to discuss.

Joe, you want to lay out that algorithm?

Hey Joe, let me ask you.  If put a copy of a dictionary file on my computer and it takes up 2 megabytes... so you're saying that I can put a second copy of the dictionary on my computer and it won't take up any more space?  I could put a million copies of the dictionary on my computer in that 2 megabytes... damn ID is useful for something.

Joe, you're confused again.  I understand, it's OK.  Learning helps with that... also, I'm given to understand, 28 shots of tequila in less than 1 hour... but I don't drink.

You are switching between definitions of information (again!).  You are using a great tactic... unless everyone knows you are using it.  You just switch between definitions that don't mean your statement is rebuted.  

In terms of meaningful information about the English language, you're right, two copies of the dictionary have the smae information.  But if you're talking Shannon, then you have to transmit BOTH copies and that takes more time.  If you're talking Kolmogorov information, then it will take slightly more information to specify BOTH copies rather than one copy of the information in the dictionary.

Of course, neither really apply to what you want, which is the informational content in DNA, because, I'm sorry (and I think the actual Biologists will agree), you don't know jack about Biology.

I know, you aren't swayed.  I don't care.  You're not even interesting.  At least in discussion with that idiot Richard Kepler, I'm having to learn new things.  

The stuff you've been regurgitating has been torn apart for 5-10 years.

Date: 2010/12/01 09:14:33, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 01 2010,08:55)
Joe knows more about biology than biologists.  
Joe knows more about genetics than geneticists.
Joe knows more about information than information scientists.
He doesn't need to learn about biology, genetics, or information to know about them.
IOW Shut up!

Actually, an interesting question does emerges from reading Joe's ravings, namely: why does he think he has so obviously refuted standard science?

From what I can tell, Joe holds that any explanation that doesn't include a complete repetition of the origin of life with all the steps explained completely is worthless.  And anybody who doesn't "understand" that is an idiot.  It's a version of the argument that each knew understanding creates two new gaps, but with added profanity and bluster.  However, it saves him the trouble of actually having to know what he's talking about, or of speaking to others in a civilized fashion.

don't forget that his pet explanation is so good that he doesn't need to show any of that himself.

IOW: It should be obvious to anyone not blinded by science.

Thomas Dolby: She Blinded Me with Science

Date: 2010/12/01 10:21:45, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 01 2010,10:08)
Quote (Hermagoras @ Dec. 01 2010,15:29)
Hey Joe, I have a challenge for you.  Could you write a reasonable explanation, in your own words and without name-calling, of why you think ID is a good scientific explanation of life?  If you agree, I will write an explanation, in my own words and without name-calling, of why I think evolution is a good scientific explanation of life.  Can you do this without invective?  Here's your chance!

Don't just tell people to watch The Privileged Planet: make the argument yourself.  Imagine that your reader has no access to a library.  You have access (you can cite all you want), but it's up to you to present the argument.  It might help to imagine that your reader is not stupid, is capable of following scientific argument, and is somebody you respect (say, a teenage relative, a nephew or niece).  

Deal?  This should be easy.  After all, I am just "an English professor who doesn't understand English" (in your words).  You are the mighty Joe G!

Seconded as a great suggestion.

However Uncle Louis' Turf Accountancy has just opened in its usual place and will be accepting bets. Odds to be decided when JoeJoe's next response is in.

Louis

Bets are only for when the result is an unknown.  The chances of JoeG actually doing something like that are significantly less than zero.

Date: 2010/12/01 11:36:50, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 01 2010,10:19)
So we have addresses. Good.

Campaign of bombing? Anyone? No?

{Mutter, grumble}

I hate being the "good guys".

Louis

That is an ironic post...

I suggest just finding the nearest billboard and putting up a sign that says something like

"Science works, bitch.  Why don't you ID people do any?"

Date: 2010/12/02 11:47:55, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I guess there are now two questions?

1) Who is going to sue first for a First Amendment violation (you'd think a 300 cubit ark was a pretty obvious endorsement of one religion)?

2) If no one sues, then when will the first Muslim theme park open?  Complete with rental burkahs and those that don't bow when the bell rings get blown up.*


* Yes, I'm being objectionable and stereotypical of the muslim religion.  deal with it.

Date: 2010/12/02 12:13:41, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 02 2010,10:57)
Quote (REC @ Dec. 02 2010,07:58)
I was waiting to see how long after the NASA press conference* it would take for some creationist to declare victory.

Cornelius Hunter preemptively (and tentatively) declares victory 6 hours before the release!

 
Quote
That’s right. A falsification of a major evolutionary prediction would be, in a brilliant stroke, turned on its head.


Cause, you know, predictions of shared biochemistry applies to all life, everywhere.

Link

*(2:00 today-announcement about something big published in Science)

According to Adam Rutherford (of The Guardian), its related to this paper: they're talking about bacteria that use arsenic in their metabolism. He also has revealed that the stuff "tastes bloody awful".

Seems the cat is out of the bag.  Bacteria in Mono Lake have DNA where Aresenic replaces Phosphorus.  

Yes, its' very cool, but nothing that it completely impossible.  Aresenic should behave (chemically) almost exactly like Phosphorus.

Date: 2010/12/03 08:35:23, Link
Author: OgreMkV
It's very funny that WE are the ones that keep asking joey for more information and requesting his methods and such.

Joe just extrudes vitriol from every orifice and, yet, refuses to discuss his 'notion'.*

Tell you what Joe, in the interest of seeing if you are an adult human, I'll make a deal.  No insults, no flame wars, just honest sincere discussion.  Deal?



* "It is not a great idea.  At best it's a notion and a sucky one at that."

Date: 2010/12/03 08:46:40, Link
Author: OgreMkV
OK, this is way off topic for AtBC, but this is the bathroom wall... and an appropriate place for this question.

I just got an e-mail from my US Senator this morning.  He is in favor of and (apparently) will attempt to put forth an ammendment to the US constitution requiring that the federal budget be balanced every year.  i.e. no deficiet spending.

I wanted to get a feel of what a bunch of smart people think about such a thing.

I have a couple of issues and without having a draft of the actual language most of this may or may not be a huge deal.

1) Can a major law like that be expressed in language compact and tight enough for an ammendment?  IOW, will the 28th ammendment be longer than all the rest combined.

2) Can a major law like be written such that it is easy to understand and not have any wriggle room for politicians?  IOW, can modern lawmakers write a law that makes sense and doesn't leave loopholes.

3) How will this law affect major incidents that would otherwise affect the national budget, for example the Yellowstone super volcano exploding, Calfornia sliding into the ocean, or a major war between nuclear powers?  IOW, can a law like that be codified such that it can support major emergancies but also not allow a major emergancy to be become the normal state of affairs (like a president and congress declaring a state of emergancy that lasts for 240 years).

I'm just curious and think it would be an interesting discussion.

Date: 2010/12/03 21:05:24, Link
Author: OgreMkV
This is an odd question, but how exactly does a moral, upright, holier-than-though Christian know about fisting, golden showers (I'm not sure I even know what that one is, though I could hazard a guess), sodomy* (I guess they read about that one in the Bible), etc. etc.  One would think they've been researching this.

I can see how that conversation goes:

"Father Jim, why are you looking at porn and what are they doing with that cabbage?"
"This research on the evils of the world child.  Now pass me that box of tissue."

*Sodomy is defined by Texas law as anything that is NOT the missionary position... yeesh.

Date: 2010/12/04 08:47:19, Link
Author: OgreMkV
According to the e-mail from the senator, only one state does not have an amendment that balanced budget is required.

So why are all the states bankrupt?  

Probably because the 'budget' is more like a wish list and has no actual bearing on reality.

I think that's the biggest problem I have with a federal amendment.  The budget is just a wish list and the politicians will pull money from good programs like education and science to fund welfare and health care.

Date: 2010/12/04 13:53:25, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Here's a letter I sent regarding the proposed amendment idea...


Quote
I received your e-mail about an amendment to the US constitution requiring a balanced budget. I have some serious concerns with such an attempt.

1) If all but one state has a similar requirement, then why do all the states appear to... be in dire financial straits? That's not exactly a ringing endorsement for the proposal.

2) I have serious concerns about the ability of today's congress to agree on a amendment that be both effective and binding. Most laws I read about today are so poorly worded that there are loopholes I could drive a truck through.

3) My major concern is that the 'budget' really appears to be a pipe dream among politicians. It has almost no actual bearing on reality at all. Not with all the special endorsements, emergency congressional payouts, etc.

4) Finally, and most importantly, I fear that good, useful funds will be diverted to black holes of financial mismanagement. Education and science programs will be stripped of money to pay for welfare and 'health care'. For example, Eric Cantor's pathetic attempt to 'save' money by having uninformed non-scientists attack the National Science Foundation. The concerns me greatly. Between attacks like this and the 'issue' in Kentucky with government sponsoring a 'Noah's Ark' theme park*, how can the US improve their science and engineering education?

I urge you to reconsider this plan. While I hate, loathe, and am disgusted by the debt the country is in** I don't think that any US amendment will have the results that the US needs.

* The KY governor is ignoring a US amendment in this case and no one is doing a thing about it. Notably, the establishment clause of the US Constitution.

** I have massive legal action posed against me if I'm a month late on my payments and I owe less than a few thousand dollars. There is apparently no limit of what I owe when it's the country in debt. If every US resident gave the federal government a thousand dollars, it wouldn't reduce the debt by an appreciable margin.

Date: 2010/12/04 13:54:44, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 04 2010,13:29)
Joe:
Quote
Evidence for a chromosomal fusion is not evidence for Common Descent.

It could very well be that Adam and Eve- that Creationist bottle-neck- had 48 and then somewhere along the line there was a fusion.

Or it could be that they had 46 and that the fusion was a design feature for reproductive isolation.


Or it could be that you're an IDiot Joe....

But he sure as heel requires a complete listing of every step, every mutation event, and every offspring to show that evolution is true.

Meanwhile, he'll accept 'just so' stories with no possible way to test them.

Got that. thanks.

Date: 2010/12/04 22:57:00, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I have another one.  This is an analogy I've been working on to help explain why the 10^260 chance of getting the exact gene sequence for whatever is not a problem for evolution.

*******

First thing to realize is that this is an issue of populations, not individuals.  Consider that the odds of getting a spade royal flush in a five card straight poker game is 2,400,000 : 1.

Now, consider a poker tournament that is a little bit like life.  There are two thousand players.  Every player is dealt one card (from their own individual deck).  Since the odds of drawing a T, J, Q, K, A of spades is 5 of 52, there will be about 200 players with one of those 5 cards.  Everyone else loses and is out.

Here's where real life comes into play.  Everyone who gets one of the spade royal cards, can now play an additional 10 hands.  This represents the ability of living things to reproduce and the tendency for living things that a very well adapted (one of our spade royals) to have many offspring.  Each of the 9 new hands is exactly the same card (so if you drew the ace of spades, all ten hands you're now playing is the ace of spades.

Repeat for the second, third, fourth, and fifth cards.  Pretty soon, you have a whole population of winning hands.  In fact, every hand left in the game will be a winning hand (by definition of the rules of the game).

Just like your genome is one of the winners of the last 4 billion years of evolution.  

*******

Thoughts? keep in mind that this isn't really for IDers, it's for people that are otherwise intelligent and have fallen prey to the simplistic notion of odds that IDers spout.

Date: 2010/12/05 12:15:12, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Maya @ Dec. 05 2010,10:13)
I just had to go see the tardwreck for myself and chanced upon tribune7's explanation of why homosexuality is wrong:
 
Quote
Why is homosexual activity immoral?

The simple answer is that the Bible says it is and when you reject that you find yourself incapable of answering with any authority as to why beating up homosexuals is immoral.

It is impossible for Man to create an authoritative moral code.

The more complex answer is that the purpose of our existence is to love which is a real, and spiritual, thing and that using another human being, or allowing oneself to be used, as an object for sexual orgasm is a violation of the principle of our existence. I submit that with regard to male homosexuality that is never anything but the case.

The arcane answer is that there are spiritual forces that hate you and want to degrade you and that you have an obligation to contest with them even if you don’t always win.

My brain literally went blank for a moment when I read this.

There is no point in engaging these people in rational discourse -- they're simply not capable of it.  Our only option is to keep beating them in court and wait for them to die off.

ETA: Alternative solution:

Check it out! Independently targeting particle beam phalanx. Vwap! Fry half a city with this puppy. We got tactical smart missiles, phase-plasma pulse rifles, RPGs, we got sonic electronic ball breakers! We got nukes, we got knives, sharp sticks, harsh language.

We are the ultimate badasses.

The only problem with waiting for them to die off is that they are breeding way the heck faster than anyone else (and having offspring survive).  Then the indocrinate the young of the species.

I'm reminded of that woman on facebook who taught her 2-year old to say, 'that's a lie' every time someone said 'millions of years'.  

That should qualify as mental abuse.

Date: 2010/12/05 14:31:41, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Maya @ Dec. 05 2010,13:49)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 05 2010,12:15)
The only problem with waiting for them to die off is that they are breeding way the heck faster than anyone else (and having offspring survive).  Then the indocrinate the young of the species.

Well, if we want slightly less collateral damage than the nuclear option involves, we could always put the socks to sleep, stop injecting any rational thought into UD, screw the cover on tight, and wait for the idiocy to hit critical mass.

It'll be a tardocalypse!

I'm afraid that if they realize that there are only 3 of them that actually support ID, then they'll try to escape and the nuclear option may be the only route.

Date: 2010/12/06 15:17:00, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (sparc @ Dec. 06 2010,14:59)
According to Luskin's latest at ENV "Behe is going viral". Let's wait until ERV reviews his new paper.

Behe is viral.

He's a horrible disease that you can't cure.  There is no known treatment.  Either you survive exposure or your brain dissolves.

But I don't think that's what they meant.

Date: 2010/12/06 20:20:13, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 06 2010,20:01)
Joe's tour de tard continues. He's like DaveTard's slow brother!

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010....ng.html

best bit:

Quote
An empty gallon of milk still takes up the same space as a full gallon Billy. I know, I used to have roommates how would put the freakin' empty gallon jug back in the refrigerator. But it is still an empty gallon- devoid of content, meaning empty. ;)


It's almost like you could COMPRESS the empty jug, or something... what a dolt!

Wow, now he thinks that milk is the same as a plastic bottle that contains the milk.

"Waitress, I'd just like the plate that held a hamburger.  It's the same thing."

Date: 2010/12/07 10:06:06, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Well, Kenya has decided to arrest all gay men and presumably kill them.  It'd be too weird to just put all the gay men in a single prison... that might be a big vacation for them.

As to the reason that no fundie is against lesbians, well, that's best stated by a comment on The Culture Wars blog.

"Lesbians going at it is HOT!  Guys, that's just ewwwww."

Date: 2010/12/08 08:44:32, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (khan @ Dec. 08 2010,07:48)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 08 2010,08:45)
Dr Dr Dr Dembski
 
Quote
I deleted Doran’s comment because it was yet another instance of the trite and easy dismissals of ID that I find elsewhere and that I’ve answered in my writings. If you want to be critical of ID on this blog, tell me something I haven’t seen before. I spent the last three months as an expert witness in the Dover case pouring over the expert witness reports of all the usual suspects on the other side (Miller, Forrest, Pennock, etc.) and responding to them at length — I expect I’ll be posting these reports on my designinference.com website soon. Try to imagine that I might be well informed about what the other side is saying. Try also to imagine that I’m easily bored by what they are saying.


Is lying by omission a sin?

Do tell, what was he pouring?

hmmm... he's probably bored because he doesn't understand the reasons he's wrong.*

As for Dover, yep DrDr sat in his hotel room for several nights, sweating, and trying to figure out how to get away from the can of whoopass that was about to get opened on his pet project



* Actually, I think he knows he's wrong.  It's just fleecing the sheeple is too easy and profitable.

Date: 2010/12/09 12:17:01, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Maya @ Dec. 09 2010,11:52)
Here's an article that should take the boys in the Manhattan thread into full apoplexy.  I'm hoping for at least one aneurism.
Quote
Using stem cell technology, reproductive scientists in Texas, led by Dr. Richard R. Berhringer at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, have produced male and female mice from two fathers.

aneurism?  Are you kidding?  Now DrDr and Meyer can have that baby they've always dreamed of... and Joe will be constantly scouring the trash for leftover bits of Behe to make the babies with.

Date: 2010/12/09 19:20:45, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Happy birthday from then giant cyber tank.  If you need something nuked, just let me know.

Date: 2010/12/10 08:35:17, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 09 2010,12:55)
As for how long this will last- (answering the question that is the title of this thread)- well until one evo steps up and actually starts producing positive evidence for your claims.

IOW it will last a long, long time...

Evidence for OUR claims or evidence for what YOU think are our claims?

Date: 2010/12/10 08:43:52, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (SLP @ Dec. 09 2010,18:13)
Quote (FloydLee @ Dec. 09 2010,17:14)
Quote
Oh, the other guy that does that is FL.  Come to think of it, has anyone seen JoeG and FL in the same place at the same time???  Could it be ... "


Nope, cain't be.  I'm me, quite exclusively.  Never been anybody else.  

You'd think after all our previous dancing in this forum, that would be clear!  :)

Btw, this is just a courtesy quicknote to clear up your inquiry. I actually won't be around till Feb 1 at the earliest.

After Feb 1, just to see how things are going, I might seriously check out this Evolutionary Discussion Forum (otherwise known as the No-count Dar-win Var-mint Pig-pen, as JoeG may have discovered by now), once again!!

FL

Funny, I thought you were out of the loop until February?

Is that when he gets his final release from the institution?

Date: 2010/12/10 09:29:24, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Got it Joe, just verifying that you had no idea what evolutionary theory was.  Thanks.

As far as Dembski... let's see if I have this right.

1) Demsbki does some math (of some kind, it's never actually been published)

2) Dembski declares that 500 is the limit

3) Then Dembski claims 'see, biology is above 500 so it has to be designed.

[I can't actually verify that step 1 happened.]

Why 500?  What's so special about that number?  How was it calculated?  Why 500 and not 501?  What value would support non-design?

Joe, explain to me how to calculate SI for something.  Tell me what to do and on what organisms/structures it works for and let's do the math.  

Does it work with bacteria or just bacterial flagella?

Comon Joe.  It's the slow season, I've got 3 psychomatricians with Ph.Ds in statistical analysis who would like something to play with for a few days.

Date: 2010/12/10 09:43:08, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,09:38)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2010,09:29)
Got it Joe, just verifying that you had no idea what evolutionary theory was.  Thanks.

As far as Dembski... let's see if I have this right.

1) Demsbki does some math (of some kind, it's never actually been published)

2) Dembski declares that 500 is the limit

3) Then Dembski claims 'see, biology is above 500 so it has to be designed.

[I can't actually verify that step 1 happened.]

Why 500?  What's so special about that number?  How was it calculated?  Why 500 and not 501?  What value would support non-design?

Joe, explain to me how to calculate SI for something.  Tell me what to do and on what organisms/structures it works for and let's do the math.  

Does it work with bacteria or just bacterial flagella?

Comon Joe.  It's the slow season, I've got 3 psychomatricians with Ph.Ds in statistical analysis who would like something to play with for a few days.

blind, undirected chemicl processes

I was about to go off on how you couldn't read, but I realized that you could read more than one sentence at a time.

I'm sorry, I'll type slower for you.

Now repeat after me: SELECTION IS NOT RANDOM (well, maybe in the case of your parents...)

Date: 2010/12/10 09:44:46, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,09:41)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2010,09:29)
Got it Joe, just verifying that you had no idea what evolutionary theory was.  Thanks.

As far as Dembski... let's see if I have this right.

1) Demsbki does some math (of some kind, it's never actually been published)

2) Dembski declares that 500 is the limit

3) Then Dembski claims 'see, biology is above 500 so it has to be designed.

[I can't actually verify that step 1 happened.]

Why 500?  What's so special about that number?  How was it calculated?  Why 500 and not 501?  What value would support non-design?

Joe, explain to me how to calculate SI for something.  Tell me what to do and on what organisms/structures it works for and let's do the math.  

Does it work with bacteria or just bacterial flagella?

Comon Joe.  It's the slow season, I've got 3 psychomatricians with Ph.Ds in statistical analysis who would like something to play with for a few days.

Tell your pals to read "No Free Lunch" and have at it.

Read it.  It doesn't explain the 500 bits either.

Hmmm... interesting, when we challenge you for information, we get "Read this book".

When we say, "Read this paper" you say no.

Date: 2010/12/10 09:51:46, Link
Author: OgreMkV
So let's try this:

Which one of these sequences has specified complexity and why?

1 gagctcctgc actggatggt ggcgctggat ggtaagccgc tggcaagcgg tgaagtgcct
      61 ctggatgtcg ctccacaagg taaacagttg attgaactgc ctgaactacc gcagccggag
     121 agcgccgggc aactctggct cacagtacgc gtagtgcaac cgaacgcgac cgcatggtca
     181 gaagccgggc acatcagcgc ctggcagcag tggcgtctgg cggaaaacct cagtgtgacg
     241 ctccccgccg cgtcccacgc catcccgcat ctgaccacca gcgaaatgga tttttgcatc
     301 gagctgggta ataagcgttg gcaatttaac cgccagtcag gctttctttc acagatgtgg
     361 attggcgata aaaaacaact gctgacgccg ctgcgcgatc agttcacccg tgcaccgctg
     421 gataacgaca ttggcgtaag tgaagcgacc cgcattgacc ctaacgcctg ggtcgaacgc
     481 tggaaggcgg cgggccatta ccaggccgaa gcagcgttgt tgcagtgcac ggcagataca
     541 cttgctgatg cggtgctgat tacgaccgct cacgcgtggc agcatcaggg gaaaacctta
     601 tttatcagcc ggaaaaccta ccggattgat ggtagtggtc aaatggcgat taccgttgat
     661 gttgaagtgg cgagcgatac accgcatccg gcgcggattg gcctgaactg ccagctggcg
     721 caggtagcag agcgggtaaa ctggctcgga ttagggccgc aagaaaacta tcccgaccgc
     781 cttactgccg cctgttttga ccgctgggat ctgccattgt cagacatgta taccccgtac
     841 gtcttcccga gcgaaaacgg tctgcgctgc gggacgcgcg aattgaatta tggcccacac
     901 cagtggcgcg gcgacttcca gttcaacatc agccgctaca gtcaacagca actgatggaa
     961 accagccatc gccatctgct gcacgcggaa gaaggcacat ggctgaatat cgacggtttc
    1021 catatgggga ttggtggcga cgactcctgg agcccgtcag tatcggcgga attccagctg
    1081 agcgccggtc gctaccatta ccagttggtc tggtgtcaaa aataataata accgggcagg
    1141 ccatgtctgc ccgtatttcg cgtaaggaaa tccattgtac tgccggacca ccgactgtga
    1201 gccactccgg ccatggcgta cgcactgacc tgcttactga tttgtaaaac cggtccggcc
    1261 atcacgctca cataacgtcc acgcaggctc tcatagtgaa acgtatcctc cccggtcatc
    1321 actgtgctgc tctttttcga cgcggcgaac cccagggaag ccatcacccc cacactgtcc
    1381 gtcagctcat aacggtactt cacgttaatc cctttcagat gactcacacc ggtatccccg
    1441 cccgacaacg acggcaatgt acccggtttc acttgaaaat agcccaccgt aaacgtacca
    1501 tgtccacctt ccgcacgggc cggagtgact gtcaccgcaa gtgcggcaaa gacagcaacg
    1561 gcaatacaca cattacgcat cgttcacctc tcactgtttt ataataaaac gcccgttccc
    1621 ggacgaacct ctgtaacaca ctcagaccac gctgatgccc agcgcctgtt tcttaatcac
    1681 cataacctgc acatcgctgg caaacgtata cggcggaata tctgccgaat gccgtgtgga
    1741 cgtaagcgtg aacgtcagga tcacgtttcc ccgacccgct ggcatgtcaa caatacggga
    1801 gaacacctgt accgcctcgt tcgccgcgcc atcataaatc accgcaccgt tcatcagtac
    1861 tttcagataa cacatcgaat acgttgtcct gccgctgaca gtacgcttac ttccgcgaaa
    1921 cgtcagcgga agcaccacta tctggcgatc aaaaggatgg tcatcggtca cggtgacagt
    1981 acgggtacc



1 atctcctgc actggatggt ggcgctggat ggtaagccgc tggcaagcgg tgaagtgcct
      61 ctggatgtcg ctccacaagg taaacagttg attgaactgc ctgaactacc gcagccggag
     121 agcgccgggc aactctggct cacagtacgc gtagtgcaac cgaacgcgac cgcatggtca
     181 gaagccgggc acatcagcgc ctggcagcag tggcgtctgg cggaaaacct cagtgtgacg
     241 ctccccgccg cgtcccacgc catcccgcat ctgaccacca gcgaaatgga tttttgcatc
     301 gagctgggta ataagcgttg gcaatttaac cgccagtcag gctttctttc acagatgtgg
     361 attggcgata aaaaacaact gctgacgccg ctgcgcgatc agttcacccg tgcaccgctg
     421 gataacgaca ttggcgtaag tgaagcgacc cgcattgacc ctaacgcctg ggtcgaacgc
     481 tggaaggcgg cgggccatta ccaggccgaa gcagcgttgt tgcagtgcac ggcagataca
     541 cttgctgatg cggtgctgat tacgaccgct cacgcgtggc agcatcaggg gaaaacctta
     601 tttatcagcc ggaaaaccta ccggattgat ggtagtggtc aaatggcgat taccgttgat
     661 gttgaagtgg cgagcgatac accgcatccg gcgcggattg gcctgaactg ccagctggcg
     721 caggtagcag agcgggtaaa ctggctcgga ttagggccgc aagaaaacta tcccgaccgc
     781 cttactgccg cctgttttga ccgctgggat ctgccattgt cagacatgta taccccgtac
     841 gtcttcccga gcgaaaacgg tctgcgctgc gggacgcgcg aattgaatta tggcccacac
     901 cagtggcgcg gcgacttcca gttcaacatc agccgctaca gtcaacagca actgatggaa
     961 accagccatc gccatctgct gcacgcggaa gaaggcacat ggctgaatat cgacggtttc
    1021 catatgggga ttggtggcga cgactcctgg agcccgtcag tatcggcgga attccagctg
    1081 agcgccggtc gctaccatta ccagttggtc tggtgtcaaa aataataata accgggcagg
    1141 ccatgtctgc ccgtatttcg cgtaaggaaa tccattgtac tgccggacca ccgactgtga
    1201 gccactccgg ccatggcgta cgcactgacc tgcttactga tttgtaaaac cggtccggcc
    1261 atcacgctca cataacgtcc acgcaggctc tcatagtgaa acgtatcctc cccggtcatc
    1321 actgtgctgc tctttttcga cgcggcgaac cccagggaag ccatcacccc cacactgtcc
    1381 gtcagctcat aacggtactt cacgttaatc cctttcagat gactcacacc ggtatccccg
    1441 cccgacaacg acggcaatgt acccggtttc acttgaaaat agcccaccgt aaacgtacca
    1501 tgtccacctt ccgcacgggc cggagtgact gtcaccgcaa gtgcggcaaa gacagcaacg
    1561 gcaatacaca cattacgcat cgttcacctc tcactgtttt ataataaaac gcccgttccc
    1621 ggacgaacct ctgtaacaca ctcagaccac gctgatgccc agcgcctgtt tcttaatcac
    1681 cataacctgc acatcgctgg caaacgtata cggcggaata tctgccgaat gccgtgtgga
    1741 cgtaagcgtg aacgtcagga tcacgtttcc ccgacccgct ggcatgtcaa caatacggga
    1801 gaacacctgt accgcctcgt tcgccgcgcc atcataaatc accgcaccgt tcatcagtac
    1861 tttcagataa cacatcgaat acgttgtcct gccgctgaca gtacgcttac ttccgcgaaa
    1921 cgtcagcgga agcaccacta tctggcgatc aaaaggatgg tcatcggtca cggtgacagt
    1981 acgggtacc

Date: 2010/12/10 10:48:07, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 10 2010,10:07)
Let me explain where 500 bits comes from, as Joe can't.

Note - This only works for spontaneous assembly.

Demsbki puts the universal probability bound at 10^150. This is the odds of something being achievable based on 'time and stuff' resources of the universe. We get it from 10^80 number of elementary particles in the observable universe, 10^45 maximum number physical transitions (from plank time) and 10^25 age of the universe (he's got the math wrong, that's not 6000!).

The best book is NOT "No Free Lunch" as Joe says but "The Design Revolution":

"All the probabilistic resources in the known physical universe cannot conspire to render remotely probable an event whose probability is less than this universal probability bound.” (Dembski, The Design Revolution, p. 87)


Add the exponents and you get 10^150

Now if you want to express this digitally (in binary) then the closest fit is 2^500. (3.2734E+150)
So that's where 500 comes from.

As we're pointing folks to papers and books, Check out this:

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/

Using a starting random base sequence of 256 bases, and a population of 64, Schneider’s program generated (using random mutation and natural selection with no human intervention) a “CSI” binding site in 704 generations.

and 64 aint a big population. Perhaps he used all of Joe's briancells.

Have a nice day.

Edited.

Wow, there are so many things wrong with this I don't know where to start... and I'm not even a mathematician.

Date: 2010/12/10 11:19:55, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 10 2010,10:49)
I will type slowly for you-

SELLECTION IS A RESULT- an output with 3 inputs each driven by chance.

Natural selection is BLIND, MINDLESS and MECHANISTIC.

is natural selection really non-random? No.

Do you feel any sense of pain, turmoil, inner regret, or uneasiness why you lie like this?

Or are you just too stupid to learn?

Why do you hold these ridiculous beliefs if, as you say, you are not a Christian?  I freely admit, you are either the worst Christian I've ever seen or a complete and utter moron.  I really don't see how anyone who is not philosophically beholden to ID can see it as valuable or even correct.

BTW: It's "selection" not "sellection"  Maybe you should type slow enough to see what you're typing.

Date: 2010/12/10 11:44:43, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Hey Joe, do mutations always reduce information?

Can mutations ever increase information?

Thanks

Date: 2010/12/10 13:54:42, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Hey Joe,

 What's the function of a bacterial flagellum?  (yes, it's a trap, so I'll understand if you cowardly don't answer)

_

Hey Joe,

 Can a bacterial flagellum that's missing one of the two motor proteins function?  (yes, it's a trap, so I'll understand if you cowardly don't answer)

_

Hey Joe,

 What's a reversion and why does it blow your concept of mutations and information completely out of the water?  (yes, it's a trap, so I'll understand if you cowardly don't answer)

Date: 2010/12/10 17:47:49, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Joe {quote}Well let's look at what natural selction is-

   “Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition


   “Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UBerkley[/quote]

My hypothesis has more supporting evidence.  Joe can't read but a few sentences at a time.  Here, a mere 4 sentences away from what Joe quoted:

Quote
At the opposite end scale, natural selection is sometimes interpreted as a random process. This is also a misconception. The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random-but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. Natural selection is NOT random!


Nice quotemine there Joe 'Coward' G.  You gonna answer my questions on an unmoderated board, coward?

Date: 2010/12/12 15:19:22, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 12 2010,11:36)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2010,13:54)
Hey Joe,

 What's the function of a bacterial flagellum?  (yes, it's a trap, so I'll understand if you cowardly don't answer)

_

Hey Joe,

 Can a bacterial flagellum that's missing one of the two motor proteins function?  (yes, it's a trap, so I'll understand if you cowardly don't answer)

_

Hey Joe,

 What's a reversion and why does it blow your concept of mutations and information completely out of the water?  (yes, it's a trap, so I'll understand if you cowardly don't answer)

1- motility

2- Perhaps, it depends on which proteins

3- No it doesn't do anything to that argument.

Ya see moron you have to first understand the argument before you can refute it.

1) Wrong moron... the true function of the flagella is excretion, mobility is a secondary function.  Geez, you're stupid.

2) Which one?  Damn you are dumber than dog spit.  There are only two motor proteins  

3) Then you have no argument either because the information content of all the mutations is the same.  

Ya see moron, you first have to understand before anything...

Well, he answered, to bad he's shown himself to be a complete imbecile.

BTW: It's your hero's contention that bacteria flagella have no function without both MotA and MotB.  This is wrong on TWO levels.  First, the flagella maintains a secretion function without either AND if MotB is missing, then MotA and several other proteins take over.

IOW (I know you love that one): Irreducible complexity is wrong.

Let me ask you Joe... Does ID depend on mutations?

Date: 2010/12/12 17:28:43, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Happy birthday...

Date: 2010/12/12 22:06:26, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 12 2010,17:54)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 12 2010,11:50)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 12 2010,11:39)
ID is not anti-evolution but it is antui-the blind watchmaker, ie what the ToE posits.

So what does ID replace the blind watchmaker with? I claim invisible pink unicorn who acts via a band of merry protein manipulation men (very small). Your claim???

   
Quote

And the evidence for ID I have already wrote about on my blog.

So if you are going to concede that your position is nonsense then I have nothing else to say.


Wake me up when you publish in the literature instead of your pathetic blog.

Maybe they are the Polamolecules?

ETA - his blog is peer-reviewed!  Everytime someone goes there they have to peer carefully to make sure they aren't hallucinating.

Peer-review does not mean his mama read it and says "good boy" even though she doesn't understand.  She's his mama, she has to say that.

Peer-review does not mean the voices in your head agree with you.

Date: 2010/12/13 09:09:59, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Hey Joe, some more questions for your lame ass 'theory'.  You were wrong on an epic scale about the last set and you blatantly avoided the one before that (interestingly, since the central tennet of ID is to be able to determine things like that*

Take the following sequence

AUG UUU UGA

******************************
the following point mutation occurs

AUG UUC UGA

Is this a loss of information?  

*******************************
Soon afterward this mutation occurs

AUG UUU UGA

Is this a loss of information?

*******************************
Now, the following mutation occurs

AUG CAC UUU UGA

Is this a loss of information?

*******************************
Let's go back to our original sequence

AUG UUU UGA

what if this mutation occurs

AUG UUC UGA

Is this a loss of information?
***********************************

There you go Joe, four easy questions for a mind that can solve the DaVinci Code in 149 minutes.



* I refer you to what ID is in their own words
Quote

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.
my emphasis to direct your attention to the important bit

Date: 2010/12/13 09:13:42, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I don't get it.  This clown fills up 400+ pages at PT and can't even get to eight here?

Date: 2010/12/14 10:53:02, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Joe, Joe, Joe...

You really ought to know me better than that.  I can provide you with the references... and I will.  You won't read them because they are longer than 2 paragraphs.  You won't understand them because they use science.  But that's OK.

What I find really funny is that this was Joe's big chance.  He had a chance to show that ID has a useful tool that can be used to learn something about the world.

Joe chickened out.  Probably because he knows that A) he doesn't actually have a clue about what's going on and B) he doesn't truly believe in ID.  

OK Joe, here you go;

reference the first:
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
Vol. 96, pp. 6456–6461, May 1999
Microbiology
A new pathway for the secretion of virulence factors by bacteria:The flagellar export apparatus functions as a proteinsecretion system
GLENN M. YOUNG*, DEBORAH H. SCHMIEL*, AND VIRGINIA L. MILLER*†‡
Quote
Biogenesis of the flagellum, a motive organelle
of many bacterial species, is best understood for
members of the Enterobacteriaceae. The flagellum is a heterooligomeric structure that protrudes from the surface of the cell. Its assembly initially involves the synthesis of a dedicated protein export apparatus that subsequently transports other flagellar proteins by a type III mechanism from the cytoplasm to the outer  urface of the cell, where oligomerization occurs.
In this study, the flagellum export apparatus was shown to function also as a secretion system for the transport of several extracellular proteins in the pathogenic bacterium Yersinia enterocolitica. One of the proteins exported by the flagellar secretion system was the virulence-associated phospholipase, YplA. These results suggest type III protein secretion by the flagellar system may be a general mechanism for the transport
of proteins that influence bacterial–host interactions.


IOW (that's my new favorite texting comment, thanks Joe): During assembly, the flagellum must excrete parts of itself AND it secretes toxic compounds while also being a function flagellum.


reference the second (multiple):
Berry RM, and Armitage JP. (1999). The bacterial flagella motor. Adv Microb Physiol, 41, 291-337.

DeRosier DJ. (1998 Apr 3). The turn of the screw: the bacterial flagellar motor. Cell, 93, 17-20.

Harshey RM and Toguchi A (1996 Jun) Spining Tails: homologies amongst bacterial flagellar systems. Trends Micro, 4, 226-231.

Mot A and B forms a proton pump which provides the power of the motor, MotB also serves to anchor the motor to the cell. Deletion of Mot A or B paralyses the cell, however, it may be possible to overcome this paralysis by over expression of Mot A (in MotB mutants), FliG and FliM

_

With that all being said, if you say so much as one word about "speculation" or "just so stories", then I'm going to hammer you for the details you are too cowardly to provide about "your own" work*.  

IOW: I want a complete description of the designer, every design it has ever made, when that design occured and what methods were used to impliment the design.  If you so much as have one gap or missing bit of information, then you have NO BUSINESS talking about our 'just so stories'.

Coward.


*I say "your own" work because you haven't done anything.  You're just taking it from Dembski.

Date: 2010/12/14 11:18:44, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Crud, reference the third vanished.  That's OK, it gives me a chance to put off a review I don't want to do and give a bit more information on this paper.

Multiple translational products from a five-nucleotide ribozyme
Rebecca M. Turka, Nataliya V. Chumachenkob, and Michael Yarusa,1

www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0912895107


Quote
These data strongly and collectively support the active site model first suggested for the C3 ribozyme (6): RNA 20ð30Þ aminoacylation requires only an unusually simple center composed of three nucleotides.


This is fascinating stuff.  They are talking about RNAs that catalyze that are only five nucleotides long and the active site is only three nucleotides long.

Quote

Nonetheless, GUGGC/GCCU is unique: It binds a complex
heteroatomic substrate and facilitates group transfer from a multipart biochemical. This implies a more complex catalytic interface than in metal-catalyzed hydrolysis employing already poised 20-hydroxyl and ribonucleotide phosphate. In addition, reactions presented here do not depend on ions infrequent in biological systems, and, in fact, show little ion ependence. Thus, it is more surprising that aminoacyl transfer is accelerated by two normal Us and a G nucleotide, poised at a helix terminus.

Further, these particular reactions are central to metabolism, resembling the substrate and product of biological aminoacyltRNA synthesis.


The reactions that are central to metabolism can be catalyzed by a five unit RNA?!?!?  Epic.

Quote

The ultimate importance of these observations may lie partly in the unknown number of other reactions that can be accelerated by comparably small RNAs. This is because for each such minuscule RNA reaction, there is a prima facie case that it would become accessible even after the most primitive ribonucleotide polymerization.

To see this, consider that, to pick every possible RNA  pentamer sequence from arbitrary pentamers (with probability 0.9975), one needs only accumulate 4.1 × 10?18 gm of RNA. To possess every tetramer (with probability 0.9975) from a pool of arbitrary tetramers, one would need 3.4 × 10?18 gm RNA. In a real polymerization, one would have a distribution of lengths; nonetheless, with only attograms of total RNA of distributed short lengths from some geochemical source, one would have not only our ribozyme, but every activity of comparable size.

As an illustration, the ribozymic complexes characterized here demonstrate that aminoacyl-RNA and peptidyl-RNAs could have appeared in the presence of ?9 nucleotides of polymeric RNA, with six of these free to vary to other base pairs. We have previously estimated that a population containing about 1 ng of arbitrary-sequence RNA would be required before useful ribozymes
and other active RNA structures would probably occur
among this population (20).


If one particular 5 unit RNA can do this, can others?  Cool, a place for further research... something ID has never done.

0.000000000000041 grams of RNA could generate every possible 5 unit length of RNA.  That's ALL.  That's all we need?!!?  Holy cow, it's not like we need 247 pounds of the stuff to instanly make a JoeG or anything.

Now, would you like the chemically feasible pre-biotic pathways for pyrimidine ribonucleotides?  Cause I can do that too?

Poor Joe, so out of his league and can't even see it.  I suppose it's cruel to keep him around like the court dwarf, just to laugh at him.  On the other hand, he voluntarily comes here.  Too bad he's too much of a coward to actually discuss Intelligent Design... or is that he's too dumb.  It's not like he's done any original research in Intelligent Design, just regurgitating whatever Dembski and Meyer say.

Poor pitiful puppy.

You're the big strong information boy, why are you scared to talk about my questions Joe?  Why is that?

I'm not asking you to calculate anything, I gave up on that months ago.  I know you can't actually do math.  No, I'm just asking whether any of those changes are a loss of information Joe, that's all.  yes or no.

If it helps, pretend that they are, oh I don't know, a piece of a larger sequence (like those first two that you chickened out of).

Date: 2010/12/14 12:37:13, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 14 2010,11:44)
Here, Joe; I'll save you the trouble.  Even though it has no relevance to Ogre's comments, you'll want to say this, so I'll do it for you and you won't have to take precious time off of your super-secret cake-batter preparation or your double classified 3 telescope (garden variety) Tom Peeping.

Quote
Still nothing about undirected processes creating, blah, blah, blah


Keep up the Basement work, Joe.  America needs you.

Ah but, JoeImpersonator#1, that's why I asked if you would like to see the Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions.

(that's a hint)

As to the telescopes... is that why one of the links on voyeurweb points to UD?... not that I know anything about voyeurweb

Date: 2010/12/14 15:05:11, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 14 2010,15:03)
But do those syllables contain SI?

Only if you know what they mean before you do the {ahem} calculation.

Date: 2010/12/14 17:09:00, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 14 2010,15:36)
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 14 2010,15:17)
Ya know, the problem with using "SI" as an acronym is that in chemistry Si means silicon, and in Spanish, "si" (with an accent) means "yes".

Among other things.


Combining two conversational threads.  I volunteer to study her!

Date: 2010/12/14 18:46:18, Link
Author: OgreMkV
IBM Computer to Play Jeopardy

So IBM thinks they have a computer that can figure out the clues well enough to actually play a game of Jeopardy.

I'll take AI for a million dollars Alex.

Date: 2010/12/14 20:33:17, Link
Author: OgreMkV
So it sounds to me like there is no moral absolute... even within a circle jerk.

Date: 2010/12/15 07:43:24, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 14 2010,20:50)
Quote (carlsonjok @ Dec. 14 2010,21:36)
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 14 2010,15:17)
Ya know, the problem with using "SI" as an acronym is that in chemistry Si means silicon, and in Spanish, "si" (with an accent) means "yes".

Among other things.


I like that young lady. She seems intelligent.

Louis

and huge... ummm... tracts of land.

Date: 2010/12/17 08:12:34, Link
Author: OgreMkV
For a test with a known outcome (kind of like a high school 'experiment'), dinner, movie, etc work OK.

For true research purposes, with unknown outcomes, very little works as good as shinies.  Especially if the research is conducted over the long term.

Date: 2010/12/17 14:15:44, Link
Author: OgreMkV
More Ogre ramblings (or rumblings).  You can blame the cold medicine or just ignore as you will.  I don't doubt it's been done before, but I think this is all mine.

If the  designer of ID acts on everything, everywhere, and everywhen, then ID is no different from saying that 'evolution' is the designer.  In Other Words, ID and evolution have the exact same starting point and the exact same ending point.  Since there is no information regarding the actual 'designer', then we can easily conclude that within the 'black box' that is an organism, there is no difference between ID and evolution.

In fact, ID itself does not support this concept because the proponents specifically say that the major parts of evolutionary science are wrong.  With that in mind, the 1st premise is wrong.

The second premise is that the designer acted once at the beginning, set the wheels in motion if you will.  Again, this premise is no different than the natural law that we see around us.  Since the ID proponents continue to argue that evolution (and often other sciences as well) is wrong, this is not the a correct premise.

We are left with one possible premise, that of the fiddler.  A designer that acts capriciously.  He acts to make changes, he acts to do things according to his plan, whim, or (pardon the pun) design.

If this third premise is the case, then we should be able to see the meddling of the designer.  It should be obvious that things have occured that could not have occured naturally.  There are a variety of versions of this premise, but I submit that all of them run afoul of the same problem.  That is, there is no unambiguous evidence that even one such meddling event has occured, much enough to render macroevolution a null concept (which is what most IDers require).

For example, if the meddler is what makes the mutations in genomes happen, then again, the designer is no different from evolution and one may as well say that evolution is the designer.

If the meddler has only acted in 'macroevolutionary' events, then it should be obvious such that whales and artiodactyles have no obvious commonalities, yet they do.  Both the fossil record and genetics support that whales and hippos have a common ancestor.  

What we actually see is that the ID proponents say their designer did 'x', then later on, when science finds a natural explanation for 'x', the ID proponents either drop the claim or alter the claim to only be a subset of 'x'.  This is an untenable position commonly known as God-of-the-Gaps.  As science learns more, the gaps get smaller and smaller, rendering their god/designer less and less important or useful.

There is one final premise, that the designer is somehow 'fooling' us.  The designer made 'x' (where 'x' is the universe, evolution, our lives, or whatever) to appear like it was natural, when it is not.  This reeks of last Thursdayism and is, in effect, no different than the first premise.  We, as a species, can only act on what we observe to be true.  If indeed the designer is 'fooling' us, then he is the one who is a fool, since he has 'fooled' us right away from him.

Note that this discussion is immaterial of whether the designer is god, aliens, time-travelling cell biologists (TTCBs) or we are in the matrix.

Date: 2010/12/18 20:55:51, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I feel so privilege.. what are the odds he'll let me post a comment?

Date: 2010/12/18 21:00:02, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Anyone have any references for the development of DNA?

Date: 2010/12/18 23:11:00, Link
Author: OgreMkV
All quotes are from Joe... though I wouldn't want to admit to them.  I don't know why he posts these things.  I mean, really dude.

Quote
he sed the function of the BF is excretion but provides a reference that sez it also SECRETES- secretion and excretion are not the same.


First, I will say I was incorrect.  Secreting is not excreting.  

Of course, the flagellal system in question was secreting TOXINS well AFTER the system was constructed.

Finally 'sed' and 'sez'.  Dude, use firefox, it at least has an auto spell checker.

Quote
But anyway, yes while the BF is forming there is some excretion going on- but it is not a BF so that is not the function of a BF. Even the Oaf's reference says the BF is a motive organelle- so what the fuck is her dumbass problem? Secretion is a secondary function.


First, bullet points, not a paragraph.  Paragraphs are usually described as a series of sentences that articulate a common theme or support a single point.

1) yes while a flagella forms, the flagella has to excrete itself.  Funny that the reference I provided also says how homologous the genes for this are to the Type III Secretory System.

2) But the OTHER part of the referenced article (which BTW, I  notice you didn't put up for anyone to actually review), says that the secretion actions continue even if the flagella is damaged by mutation.

3) HIS dumbass problem is that you (Joe) are too ingrained and indoctrinated by belief and personal incredulity to learn exactly what is going on, just trying to cherry pick points that you think support you while ignoring those that don't AND not giving your poor deluded reader (and Richard) a chance to review the work for themselves.

4) Secretion is a function secondary or not.  Which is an odd statement since one sentence prior you said it wasn't a function.

This one paragraph provides further support to my hypothesis that you cannot maintain more than 1-2 sentences worth of information in your brain at the same time.

Let's see what other tidbits we have.

Quote
The second question was bogus to begin with. Ya see there may be only two TYPES of motor proteins (motA and motB) but there are more than two proteins in the configuration. And what is the evidence that if the BF stops spinning-ie all motor proteins are missing- that it can still secrete?


"Ya see"?? Are you from so deep south that all your bowls have "Cool Whip"™ written on them?

Yes, there are more than 1 of each type of protein (MotA and MotB) in each flagellal system.  Interestingly though, if you damage the blueprint... the system doesn't have any at all (hint: it can't make that protein).

As far as your last sentence... all I can say is What... The... Fuck... are you talking about.

In the reference, a specific case was stated that the flagella was non-functional as a mobility system, yet still secreted toxins.  I think that was in two paragraphs, so I understand how you missed it.

What's really funny is that you missed the entire point.  If, as Behe says, the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, or even the core proteins (which by the way varies among organisms) are irreducibly complex, then by definition the system can't work if MotA or MotB is missing entirely.  Yet it has been proven that a flagella system without MotB works both as a mobility system and as a secretion system.  IOW: Behe is wrong.  The flagellum is not IC... which means he has zero systems that are IC now.

Damn, that's a lot of crap in one paragraph.

Quote

The oaf's third question proves it doesn't understand the argument and thinks its ignorance is some sort of refutation.


Here's the third question I asked "What's a reversion and why does it blow your concept of mutations and information completely out of the water?"

Since this is the entire mention of this question he gives, (Which has the benefit of not being completely nonsensical like the rest of his work so far) I think it's safe to assume that JoeG doesn't understand what a reversion is, that they actually do exist in the real world, and it means that, by any definition, mutations can increase information.

I'll skip the part about the catalyst.  It'll be fun to let Joe think he actually has an argument for a while and then carpet bomb him again.  It's so cute how creationists think that anything that happens in the lab is, by definition, designed.  I guess it's because they don't actually do any lab work themselves.  Well, Joe does lab work, but since he's decided that ticks are vegetarians... I think we all know what kind of 'lab work' he's doing in the basement of his mom's house.

I will make one comment on his last sentence:

Quote
Irreducible Complexity is an obstacle for Darwinism even if parts of a system have other functions- Also you still have to demonstrate that blind, undirected chemical processes can account for that other function.


and that comment is:
Evolution of the Bacterial Flagellum  (pdf format)

This is the cliff notes version.  There's not a lot of pictures (sorry, no mazes or pop-up-pictures), so I doubt Joe will understand that this is a review of the last 15 years of research.  I sure as heck know that Joe won't be bothered to read any of that actual research.

However, let's play the same game Joe.  I'll demand the same level of detail from your notion that you demand from my 15 years worth of research hypothesis.  Is that fair?

Date: 2010/12/19 14:06:16, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 19 2010,13:39)
I am quite afraid, O Cybertankish One, that Joey will no doubt hide behind Behe's skirts and claim that he, like Dembski, need not descend to our pitiful level of detail.


The gods are kind: they have made our foes ridiculous.  


The MadPanda, FCD :p  :p

But we also know why they hide.  It's because they are intellectual cowards who can't stand the thought of actually just saying, "we don't believe in evolution because it's against our religion"

Of course, lying is against their religion and they do that all the time too.  Funny that.

Date: 2010/12/20 08:02:34, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 19 2010,22:51)
Stanton, I must regrettably admit that I missed that episode, and also that my curiosity is piqued.  I shall have to go a-hunting for it, now.  Or just put Muppet Show DVDs on my wish list.

IRT our dear friend with the reading comprehension problem, Biggy, I have a feeling that he'll take my jesting proposal to start running practical experiments in maleficium seriously.  Unfortunately, even though it would be for posterity, I doubt he'd honestly report any little aches, pains, or mishaps that follow...   :D

Dumber than advertised, that boy.


The MadPanda, FCD

Just remind Biggy that he has a thread here that he cowardly ran out on and then ignore him.

Date: 2010/12/20 13:39:27, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Oh yeah.  I forgot that it's the end of the semester (though this is very late... maybe quarter system?) and Dembski's clueless babies need to go preach to the heathens.

Don't they have any creativity?  "Stephen Meyer"?  Someone ought to e-mail Meyer and let him know he's being an idiot on PT.

Now that would be a laugh riot.

Meyer: Dude, at least tell your kids to use their own names or something when the attack a science forum.

Dembski: Are you kidding, I can't even get them to remember their own names.  These kids are dumb... must be the poor education here in the States.

Date: 2010/12/20 19:02:53, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Not only does Joe believe it, but he will argue to his grave that there are tiny little bones inside every spider.

Let's hope he tries to capture a few black widows to experiment on.

Date: 2010/12/20 21:01:57, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I maintain that Joe cannot keep more than two sentences in memory at the same time.  As soon as he starts reading or writing a third, the first one drops out.

It makes things easier for him... sadly.

Date: 2010/12/21 07:04:12, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 21 2010,06:29)
Quote (sledgehammer @ Dec. 20 2010,16:24)
From Nick's NCSE link:    
Quote
If [Behe were] presented with the opportunity again, though, he’d  be back on the stand. Intelligent design supporters have to participate, he said, or “people will think we were afraid to show up.”

I'm guessing no-shows, double-D Dembski and little Stevie Meyer would do it all over again as well.

Offered the chance to show us how depositions should be done, they ducked and ran. The DI is allergic to obvious public failure, which is why their head honcho asked the various DI fellows to withdraw from the case. Three out of five DI Fellows agreed with him.

The others got the rear's handed to them on a platter with all the trimmings.

Date: 2010/12/21 08:54:38, Link
Author: OgreMkV
From the Behe Paper thread on PT;

from Kris
Quote

It’s only absurd to people who think they know everything but can’t answer the questions.


Every question that you or Colin has asked has been asnwered.  Whether you like or approve of the answer or not, is not our problem.

Quote

And Colin didn’t bring up the comparison to speaking English. He also didn’t ask what sounds or language the first insects made or spoke.


You are not getting it, and neither did Colin.  You cannot, no linguist can, point to a specific person, or a specific place, or a specific time and say "That is the first instance of English."  

Heck, without significant post graduate training it's almost impossible to read English writing or 400 years ago (say Chaucher for example).  Is that, therefore not English?  

Do you see the problem, English as a language is not fixed.  It is a continuum of changes throughout time and space (American English vs. British English for example).  Truly, when we say "English" or "insect" normally, we mean what is right now, not the continuum of all versions since there was anything that might be considered English or insects.

The best method for discussing these types of things is cladistics.

Personally, I also find it intellectually offensive, when someone comes in with a non-sensical 'gotcha' question, when merely typing that question into google would result in an answer much more easily than what we provide.

In 15 years of doing this, I have yet to run across a true 'gotcha' question from a creationist.

I do have, however, plenty of gotcha questions for creationists... depending on the flavor of their personal beliefs.  And that's exactly because all creationism (including ID) is based entirely on belief, not reality.

Quote

You guys use every trick in the book to side-step answering legitimate questions, just like you accuse the creationists of doing. You think you’re really different from them but you’re not.


There were no sidesteps.  Again, the fact that you don't like the asnwer you get doesn't mean it wasn't answered or the answer given is wrong.

Quote

Even though science has some strong evidence or proof of some things, that doesn’t mean it (or you) have all the answers or even any evidence in many cases.


And the only people that say this are creationists.  The ultimate strawman.  

The only reason you think we have all the answers is because your 'gotcha' questions are so pathetic that a guy with a bachelor's degree in Earth Science can handily defeat them.

[QUOTE}
There are lots of things beyond what you or anyone else on Earth can figure out right now, and maybe forever. When you (or anyone else) come across as knowing everything about everything you just look like an arrogant, pompous fool. Yeah, you guys accuse the creationists of that too, and it certainly fits them in some cases, but it also fits most of you too.
[/QUOTE]

And no one disagrees with this point, except the pompus fool bit.

Do you honestly think that ANYTHING you have said or any questions you have asked (or Colin asked) are original in any way shape or form?  This website is full of people who have arguing with creationists for DECADES.

You are not unique.



IBIG

Quote

Abiogenesis isn’t being tested! Science is attempting to actually CREATE life, which would be an example of CREATION, because it would demonstrate that intelligence was needed to create life. I don’t believe that science will ever create life though.


It's truly hillarious how creationists think that anything done in a lab is 'designed'.  They truly don't understand simple concepts like chemistry.

Batteries are designed, it's true.  However, the chemical reactions that produce the electricty are not designed.  That chemical reaction will occur, even if the material is found lumped together in the wild with no intelligent agent EVER having been involved (note, I don't say this is likely to happen, I'm just saying that the chemical reaction WILL happen.)

In the same way, the chemical reactions that form the basis for the many hypotheses of abiogenesis happen.  If they are chemically possible, then they WILL happen under the proper conditions.  If we replicate the conditions of primitive Earth in the lab, then certain chemical reactions happen.  If they happen in the lab, then they happened, when (and if) the Earth had those conditions.

It's called Chemistry, and you better hope it always works that way.  Otherwise YOU won't work (or anything else in our world for that matter).

As far as creating life in the lab? Perhaps you are familier with the succesful attempts to use a hand made genome to run a bacterial cell?

Please note that the 'creating life' in the lab is a completely seperate practice from abiogensis.  Just because humans can do something doesn't mean that all instances of that event were designed by something.

I can make a wave in the bathtub, it doesn't mean that every wave in the ocean is designed.

I know you won't see the difference, because you have epically huge ideological blinders on, but, again, that's not my problem.  

Which reminds me, IBIG, I still don't really know why you have those ideological blinders.  You obviously (over the last 6 months of dealing with you) don't actually believe in the Bible and what it says, why are you a Christian anyway?

Date: 2010/12/21 10:51:16, Link
Author: OgreMkV
I'm so sad.  Joe has abandoned me.  Boo Hoo.

The page has turned and since Joe can process more than just a few sentences at a time, it could take him months of dedicated study just to get back to my refutation of his blog post.

Ah well, the simple fact that he made such inane and ridiculous statements in his blog indicates he doesn't have a clue about which he speaks anyway.

I will admit it is quite brave of him to enter into a battle of wits totally unarmed.  Brave?  Kind of like that moron who goes around catching poisonous snakes for fun... brave or just too monumentally stupid to know what he's doing.

Ah well.

Since Joe is too cowardly to come here and defend his rather pathetic mental activity (not too mention cowardice*), I'll assume that he has no answer to my reply and will remind him of it every chance I get.  

* Yes Joe, you are a coward.  You refuse to comment in a non-moderated forum so your errors of logic, knowledge, and reading could be corrected.  Yet post in a place that is solely controlled by you.  You're like the little kid who takes his ball and goes home when the other guy wins.  So go on, coward Joe, go on and play with yourself.  Who knows, you might even win (for some value of 'win').

Date: 2010/12/21 18:38:41, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Robin @ Dec. 21 2010,15:36)
[quote=OgreMkV,Dec. 21 2010,08:54][/quote]
 
Quote
I can make a wave in the bathtub, it doesn't mean that every wave in the ocean is designed.


Feh...waves are just God rockin' back and forth in the Pacific. For whatever reason, he rocks harder when the moon is new and full...

If the ocean's rockin', don't come knockin'?

Date: 2010/12/21 20:00:28, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Wow, another Christian accusing people of being evil just cause they think his God is nuts.

Date: 2010/12/22 16:58:03, Link
Author: OgreMkV
IBIG,

 No one knows EXACTLY what the prebiotic Earth was like.  However there are large variety of things that we DO know.  Furthermore, over the last 50 years many, many variations of these experiments all with slightly different conditions.

 If it is chemically possible, then it will happen.

Now do you (or "Michael Behe") have any evidence to support of any proposition of Intelligent Design? When did the designer last act? When did the designer first act? Did the designer only act once? Is the designer acting constantly (i.e. every living thing is uniquely designed)? Is the designer a meddler (i.e. acting capriciously or at whim)? How does the designer do his thing? What is the mechanism of design?

Do you even understand why these questions are important?

Do you know Demsbki's math? Can you calculate the CSI or FCI or anything else for an unknown? What values would mean design and what would mean evolved?

Do you understand why these question are important?

Do you accept that all of the leading proponents of ID have publicly stated that ID is religious? If you do, then why do you even care? ID is not science, it can't be taught in science classes, as an explanation for anything it is totally without merit. If you don't accept what Dembski, Behe, Wells, Meyer, Nelson say... why not? Do you know more about ID than they do? Good, then answer the above questions and let's get on with it.

You guys are making a statement that no one agrees with. Defend it.

Date: 2010/12/22 19:26:54, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 22 2010,19:10)
Posting from the EU? I doubt it.

Posting privileges have been revoked. If the real Mike Behe wants an account (heh), I'll nuke the troll's account then.

Good thing to Wes.  That guy was several orders of magnitude below pathetic.

Date: 2010/12/24 14:07:28, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Yeah, that IOW will be the telling argument.  I ought to ask him how to calculate CSI, do I use the English word?  Or maybe if hail and water are the same compound.

Date: 2010/12/24 21:32:38, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Merry Christmas everyone.

I had to brag about the best Christmas present ever.  My mom got me 500 minutes on one of NASA's 15inch telescopes (Australia, Canary Islands, and South America).

Date: 2010/12/25 09:11:45, Link
Author: OgreMkV
There will be postings.  As I understand it, these may not be actual NASA scopes though, but they are still 15inch opticals.

All the images that my searches collect will be available for downloading.  I guess I'll do a fliker account for them.

Got to figure out my priorities though.  

M81
horsehead nebula
crab nebula
definitely want some shots of the two Magellanic Clouds

And Lou... watch for sunburn on the... umm... private bits.

Date: 2010/12/25 20:32:01, Link
Author: OgreMkV
If he says he isn't Christian... then it's additional evidence he's Joey

Date: 2010/12/27 09:21:05, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Joe_g?!?!?

Quote
Hi Ogre- I am Joe G and have always posted here as Joe G.

But anyway “evolution” is not being debated and there isn’t ONE peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates that blind, undirected chemical processes can CONSTRUCT a functional multipart system.


No one thinks that a blind, undirected process can construct a functional multi-part system.  This is another strawman.  

Evolution IS undirected in the sense that there is no final goal.  Of course, Joe takes this to mean a different thing that is obviously intended.

Evolution IS NOT undirected in the sense that it is just random things happening and, suddenly we get a human.

Joe, you've been confusing this for a long time.  You have been corrected multiple times.  If you truly are an 'honest researcher', then it is time to stop using this tactic.  Thank you.

Furthermore, you have been given many, many papers that show that this does indeed occur.  You don't like them, that's not our problem.  You have yet to discuss the actual evidence presented in any of the papers that have been provided to you.

Quote

IOW you evotards are still clueless and still unable to produce positive evidence for your position.


Yep, something like 100,000 peer-reviewed papers per year is no evidence at all... of course... design has no evidence at all.  None.  And you sure as heck haven't even attempted to provide any.  

Quote

It is funny watching you evotards equivocate as if your equivocation is some sort of argument.

Hopefully Matzke will be called to testify at the next “ID trial”…


Pot, meet kettle.

How about answering these questions coward.

Do you have any evidence to support of any proposition of Intelligent Design? When did the designer last act? When did the designer first act? Did the designer only act once? Is the designer acting constantly (i.e. every living thing is uniquely designed)? Is the designer a meddler (i.e. acting capriciously or at whim)? How does the designer do his thing? What is the mechanism of design?

Do you even understand why these questions are important?

Do you know Demsbki’s math? Can you calculate the CSI or FCI or anything else for an unknown? What values would mean design and what would mean evolved?

Do you understand why these question are important?

Do you accept that all of the leading proponents of ID have publicly stated that ID is religious? If you do, then why do you even care? ID is not science, it can’t be taught in science classes, as an explanation for anything it is totally without merit. If you don’t accept what Dembski, Behe, Wells, Meyer, Nelson say… why not? Do you know more about ID than they do? Good, then answer the above questions and let’s get on with it.

You guys are making a statement that no one agrees with. Defend it.

Date: 2010/12/27 09:31:39, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote
Yes there is plenty of evidence to support the design inference. As for your other questions perhaps you can explain their significance and also explain why we have to know all the answers before ID is accepted- especially seeing that your position can’t answer anything?


Because... and I'll type slowly for you

Negative evidence for one case is not positive evidence for another case.

IOW: antievolution =/= positive design.

Even if you disprove evolution, it doesn't and will never mean that ID is correct.

Quote

No it doesn’t matter that some or even most IDists are religious- or are you saying that since most evos are atheists that the ToE is atheistic?


Evolution doesn't care, it is based on evidence and reality, not myth like ID is.

Quote

And BTW not one IDist has said that ID is religious- you are a lying punk- but I do understand that is all you have are lies.


As far as the Dembski quote. He signed (if not wrote) a document that says, "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

Demsbki: "If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient."
- William Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 1999.

"Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration." - Intelligent Design's Contribution To The Debate Over Evolution: A Reply To Henry Morris, 2005

"But there are deeper motivations. I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God's glory is getting robbed...And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he's done - and he's not getting it." - address given at Fellowship Baptist Church, Waco, Texas, March 7, 2004

"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999

"Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God."
- William Dembski quoted, Science Test, Church & State Magazine, July / August 2000.

Of course, don't forget that Dembski just came out as a Young Earth Creationist, so of course, EVERYTHING (according to him) is the direct, not indirect, result of the Judeo-Christian God.

I can provide about 2 dozen more from Wells, Behe, Dembski, I think I have one from Nelson and Meyers as well.  Don't forget that every one of them signed a statement to replace science with a Christian interpretation of the natural world.

Quote

Also design is a mechanism and a targeted search is one specific design mechanism, one that has been shown to be able to construct a functional mulipart system- and your position still has nothing!


Really, then why does Behe say that there is no mechanism for ID?

Why does Nelson say there is no research program for ID?

You better get on the stick and tell these guys that there is a mechanism.

Of course, evolution has been shown to construct a functional multipart system too.  

Tell me (and these are DIRECTLY related to the points you just brought up)

Did the designer only act once? Is the designer acting constantly (i.e. every living thing is uniquely designed)? Is the designer a meddler (i.e. acting capriciously or at whim)? How does the designer do his thing? What is the mechanism of design?

Date: 2010/12/27 09:37:35, Link
Author: OgreMkV
IBIG
Quote
Moving the goal posts again? Doesn’t sound like integrity to me. All I am asking is for you to answer what should be extremely rudimentary questions. Which obviously you can’t answer them, so evidently the evidence doesn’t exist!


IBIG, I haven't moved the goalposts.  They are exactly the same place they always are.

You are challenged to support your position (whatever that is, because you still haven't stated it, though I think you a YEC).

There is no evidence for ID.  There is no evidence that much of the Bible is anything more than myth.

There is no evidence for miracles or anything else.

As far as your questions, I've answered them, many, many times.  You REFUSE to discuss the papers I've provided you with.  It's not my problem if you can't handle the truth.

You have no position and you have yet to show any idea what science even is, much less be able to discuss it intelligently.  You define and defend a position and we'll talk about it.  Because you sure can't discuss evolution.

Date: 2010/12/27 09:42:04, Link
Author: OgreMkV
JoeG

Quote

ID is NOT anti-evolution- are you chumps really that ignorant?


You might want to talk to your fellow design proponesists about that.  Because that's all they want to do is attack evolution.

Did you know that not a single scrap of positive evidence was present in the Dover Trial?

Meyer's Signature in the Cell was "one long argument for ID" had zero evidence in it.  Just a long speal about how evolution can't to this or that.

All the books by Wells, Behe, etc that only attack evolution.

Not a single piece of positive evidence for ID.

I think it is you that is confused about what ID is.  Not surprising, you sure don't know what evolution is.

SO how about it?  Answer some questions... coward.

Date: 2010/12/27 09:47:34, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Kris;

Quote
I’m so glad you said that. :)

Now, since you and/or other scientists and most people here state that abiogenesis occurred, and since most of the people on Earth don’t agree, let’s see you defend it.


Very, very few people know enough about it to have a valid opinion. You can think your fellow IDiots for making this mess.  

[quote]
Remember now; only actual, testable, duplicable, verifiable evidence will do. Here’s your chance to PROVE that creation and/or ID are NOT POSSIBLE under any circumstances or by any definition, and that chemistry, mutation, natural selection or other strictly natural processes are the ONLY way life could and does exist, here and elsewhere in the universe. [quote]

No no... you are STILL getting it wrong.  We don't have to show that ID is not possible.  That's a negative claim.  No one cares.

If you want to be taken seriously, YOU have to show POSITIVE evidence for ID.  Honestly, the few claims that ID has made that are testable have been shown to be untrue... for example, the bacterial flagellum and immune system are irreducibly complex.  False.

No one can say a designer doesn't exist.  I have never said that.  I seriously doubt one does and there hasn't been any evidence to support one in hundreds of years of trying.  But I'd never say a designer doesn't exist.

Now, here's your chance... show ID has positive evidence.   Tell us about the designer...


Do you have any evidence to support of any proposition of Intelligent Design? When did the designer last act? When did the designer first act? Did the designer only act once? Is the designer acting constantly (i.e. every living thing is uniquely designed)? Is the designer a meddler (i.e. acting capriciously or at whim)? How does the designer do his thing? What is the mechanism of design?

Do you even understand why these questions are important?

Do you know Demsbki’s math? Can you calculate the CSI or FCI or anything else for an unknown? What values would mean design and what would mean evolved?

Do you understand why these question are important?

Do you accept that all of the leading proponents of ID have publicly stated that ID is religious? If you do, then why do you even care? ID is not science, it can’t be taught in science classes, as an explanation for anything it is totally without merit. If you don’t accept what Dembski, Behe, Wells, Meyer, Nelson say… why not? Do you know more about ID than they do? Good, then answer the above questions and let’s get on with it.

Date: 2010/12/27 09:50:11, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote
NICE DODGE!!! You can’t answer the questions, so you resort to your usual tactics of diverting attention, or attacking the person questioning. Just admit that you don’t know the answer to my questions and we will move on.


It's not a dodge.  As I said, I have provided you with no less than 70+ papers regarding these topics.

Just because you don't read them or want to discuss them doesn't mean that I haven't provided them.

I have never said anything about you that wasn't observable fact either.

Date: 2010/12/27 10:20:22, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Kris
Quote

Not every ID argument is a poorly-disguised creationist attack on evolution. Mine certainly aren’t. I’ve only argued that creation or ID are possible in some form, and I have also stated that I believe evolution has occurred and does occur.

Not everyone thinks like the people you keep referring to and not everyone thinks like you do. I’m sure that comes as a big surprise to you, but it’s true.


You have not 'argued' that creationism is possible in some form.  You stated it baldly with no support.

Fine, but you have yet to produce any evidence for the support of design, designer, or creation.

Date: 2010/12/27 10:31:28, Link
Author: OgreMkV
JoeG

Quote
Well your ignorance is not a refutation, that is for sure.

ID is an argument against the blind watchmaker having sole dominion over evolution.

That much is clearly spelled out in most, if not all, pro-ID literature.


But your ignorance is support?? Funny how that works.

You need to read up on ID then buddy.  Dembski has said (paraphrase) "ID is the Logos Theory of JOhn stated in information terminology"   Since he's a YEC, he believes in a literal 6 day creation and independent creation of al living things.

Why don't you go argue with him about that?

Quote

Strange that myself and other IDists have produced plenty of positive evidence for ID.


Then why won't you provide any of it on request?

Quote
Ogre- just because you are ignorant doesn’t mean I am attacking a straw man.

And you haven’t pointed out anything that also has a valid reference to support it. OTOH I have supported my claims about the theory of evolution.

Also I have never said nor implied that if the blind watchmaker tesis was refuted that ID would win. IOW once agin you are lying.


blah blah

That second statement is a bald faced lie.  I've provided you over 70 papers and you made some generic comments about 1 of them.  The comments were mainly, "but it doesn't show x" and not a specific criticism of the papers themselves.

I have never said anything about the blindwatchmaker... IOW, you are lying about me.

Quote
Just read a biology text book- you will find things like “proof-reading, error-correction, editing, splicing etc.” all of those require knowledge, just as all computer programs require knowledge.


Really, If DNA is software then show me

1) an IF-Then statement in DNA.

2) Show me a counting loop in DNA.

3) A computation in DNA

4) Tell me, is the designer just incompentant?  I mean, why is a huge amount of our 'software' useless junk?  Why are there viral codes imbedded in our DNA?

What's really funny is that if you insist on making this argument, you're actually supporting common descent as well.



Sad really... as far as your pathetic attempts to drum up the count on your blog... nah.  State it here.  I refuse to associate with a foul mouthed coward who can't support his own argument.

Date: 2010/12/27 10:33:52, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Quote (Joe G @ Dec. 27 2010,10:19)
Ogre you are a lying piece of shit as not one IDist has said that ID is religious.

Also I have supported the claim the the ToE posits blind, undirected chemical processes. OTOH you have never supported the claim that my claim is a straw man.

Your ignorance of the ToE is not a refutation.

So until you stop with your cowardice there isn't anything else to say.

As far as the Dembski quote. He signed (if not wrote) a document that says, "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

Demsbki: "If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient."
- William Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 1999.

"Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration." - Intelligent Design's Contribution To The Debate Over Evolution: A Reply To Henry Morris, 2005

"But there are deeper motivations. I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God's glory is getting robbed...And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he's done - and he's not getting it." - address given at Fellowship Baptist Church, Waco, Texas, March 7, 2004

"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue4: July/August, 1999

"Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God."
- William Dembski quoted, Science Test, Church & State Magazine, July / August 2000.

Of course, don't forget that Dembski just came out as a Young Earth Creationist, so of course, EVERYTHING (according to him) is the direct, not indirect, result of the Judeo-Christian God.

Date: 2010/12/27 14:11:33, Link
Author: OgreMkV
Look, Joe, Kris

I know you don't understand this, but the reason it's so hard to present the information you are requesting is not because it doesn't exist, but because there is so much of it.

Here's a starting list of papers.  Read every one of them.  Compare the results between and among papers, then we'll talk.

Keep in mind that this is just the tip of the iceberg.  Finish all these, then we'll talk about the rest.

There's no use arguing about the details of the papers.  No, there is no ONE paper that will state exactly what you want to see... of course NO scientist would expect that.  It's ALL about the details and combining the details into a coherent picture.

ID doesn't have a single detail.

[1] Appearance of novel capabilities in organisms via mutation and selection - Nylonase enzymes in Japanese Flavobacterium species (among others):

A New Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene (nylC) On Plasmid pOAD2 From A Flavobacterium sp. by Seiji Negoro, Shinji Kakudo, Itaru Urabe, and Hirosuke Okadam, Journal of Bacteriology, 174(12): 7948-7953 (December 1992)

A Plasmid Encoding Enzymes For Nylon Oligomer Degradation: Nucleotide Sequence And Analysis Of pOAD2 by Ko Kato, Kinya Ohtsuki, Yuji Koda, Tohru Maekawa, Tetsuya Yomo, Seiji Negoro and Itaru Urabe, Microbiology, 141: 2585-2590 (1995)

Biodegradation Of Nylon Oligomers by Seiji Negoro, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 54: 461-466 (26th May 2000)

Birth Of A Unique Enzyme From An Alternative Reading Frame Of The Pre-eEisted, Internally Repetitious Coding Sequence by Susumu Ohno, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 81: 2421-2425 (April 1984)

DNA-DNA Hybridization Analysis Of Nylon Oligomer-Degradative Plasmid pOAD2: Identification Of The DNA Region Analogous To The Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene by Seiji Negoro, Shunichi Nakamura and Hirosuke Okada, Journal of Bacteriology, 158(2): 419-424 (May 1984)

Emergence Of Nylon Oligomer Degradation Enzymes In Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO Through Experimental Evolution by Irfan J. Prijambada, Seiji Negoro, Tetsuya Yomo and Itaru Urabe, Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022 (May 1995)

Insertion Sequence IS6100 On Plasmid pOAD2, Which Degrades Nylon Oligomers by Ko Kato, Kinya Ohtsuki, Hiroyuki Mitsuda, Tetsuya Yomo, Seiji Negoro and Itaru Urabe, Journal of Bacteriology, 176(4): 1197-1200 (February 1994)

No Stop Codons In The Antisense Strands Of The Genes For Nylon Oligomer Degradation by Tetsuya Yomo, Itaru Urabe and Hirosuke Okada, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 89: 3780-3784 (May 1992)

Nylon Oligomer Degradation Gene, nylC, On Plasmid pOAD2 From A Flavobacterium Strain Encodes Endo-Type 6-Aminohexanoate Oligomer Hydrolase: Purification And Characterisation Of The nylC Product by Shinji Kakudo, Seiji Negoro, Itaru Urabe and Hirosuke Okada, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 59(11): 3978-3980 (November 1993)

Plasmid-Determined Enzymatic Degradation Of Nylon Oligomers by Seiji Negoro, Tomoyasu Taniguchi, Masaharu Kanaoka, Hiroyuki Kimura and Hirosuke Okada, Journal of Bacteriology, 155(1): 22-31 (July 1983)

[2] Appearance of novel capabilities in organisms via mutation and selection - Antifreeze Glycoproteins in Antarctic Notothenioid fishes:

Convergent Evolution of Antifreeze Glycoproteins in Antarctic Notothenioid Fishes and Arctic Cod by Liangbiao Chen, Arthur L. deVries and Chi-Hing C. Cheng, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 94: 3817-3822 (1997)

Evolution of an Antifreeze Glycoprotein by Liangbiao Chen and Chi-Hing C. Cheng, Nature, 401: 443-444 (1999)

Evolution of Antifreeze Glycoprotein Gene from a Trypsinogen Gene in Antarctic Notothenioid Fishes by Liangbiao Chen, Arthur L. deVries and Chi-Hing C. Cheng, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 94: 3811-3816 (1997)

Functional Antifreeze Glycoprotein Genes in Temperate-Water New Zealand Nototheniid Fishes Infer An Antarctic Evolutionary Origin by Chi-Hing C Cheng, Liangbiao Chen, Thomas J Near and Yumi Jin, Journal of Molecular and Biological Evolution, 20(11): 1897-1908 (2003)

Nonhepatic Origin of Notothenioid Antifreeze Reveals Pancreatic Synthesis As Common Mechanism in Polar Fish Freezing Avoidance by Chi-Hing C Cheng, Paul A. Cziko and Clive W. Evans, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 103: 10491-10496 (2006)

[3] Speciation events observed in the laboratory:

Evidence For Rapid Speciation Following A Founder Event In The Laboratory by James R. Weinberg Victoria R. Starczak and Danielle Jörg, Evolution 46: 1214-1220 (15th January 1992)

Experimentally Created Incipient Species of Drosophila by Theodosius Dobzhansky & Olga Pavlovsky, Nature 230, 289 - 292 (2nd April 1971)

Founder-Flush Speciation In Drosophila pseudoobscura: A Large Scale Experiment by A. Galiana, A. Moya and F. J. Alaya, Evolution 47: 432-444 (1993)

Phagotrophy By A Flagellate Selects For Colonial Prey: A Possible Origin Of Multicellularity by Martin.E. Boraas, Dianne.B. Seale and Joseph .E. Boxhorn, Evolutionary Ecology 12(2): 153-164 (February 1998 )

Sexual Isolation Caused By Selection For Positive And Negative Phototaxis And Geotaxis In Drosophila pseudoobscura by E. del Solar, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 56: 484-487 (1966)

The Phagotrophic Origin Of Eukaryotes And Phylogenetic Classification Of Protozoa by Tom Cavalier-Smith, International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 52: 297-354 (2002)

[4] Speciation events in nature and supporting phylogenetic evidence: Cichlid fishes

Adaptive Evolution And Explosive Speciation: The Cichlid Fish Model by Thomas D. Kocher, Nature Reviews: Genetics, 5: 288-298 (April 2004)

Cichlid Species Flocks Of The Past And Present by A. Meyer, Heredity 95: 419-420 (20 July 2005)

Drosophila paulistorum: A Cluster Of Species In Statu Nascendi by Theodosius Dobzhansky & Boris Spassky, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA., 45(3): 419-428 (1959)

Hybridisation And Contemporary Evolution In An Introduced Cichlid Fish From Lake Malawi National Park by J. Todd Streelman, S.L. Gymrek, M.R. Kidd, C. Kidd, R.L. Robinson, E. Hert, A.J. Ambali and T.D. Kocher, Molecular Ecology, 13: 2471-2479 (21 April 2004)

Major Histocompatibility Complex Variation In Two Species Of Cichlid Fishes From Lake Malawi by Hideki Ono, Colm O'hUigin, Herbert Tichy and Jan Klein, Molecular and Evolutionary Biology, 10(5): 1060-1072 (1993)

Mitochondrial Phylogeny Of The Endemic Mouthbrooding Lineages Of Cichlid Fishes From Lake Tanganyika In Eastern Africa by Christian Sturmbauer and Axel Meyer, Journal of Molecular and Biological Evolution, 10(4): 751-768 (1993)

Multilocus Phylogeny Of Cichlid Fishes (Pisces: Perciformes) : Evolutionary Comparison Of Microsatellite And Single-Copy Nuclear Loci by J. Todd Streelman, Rafael Zardoya, Axel Meyer and Stephen A Karl, Journal of Molecular and Biological Evolution, 15(7): 798-808 (1998)

Origin Of The Superflock Of Cichlid Fishes From Lake Victoria, East Africa by Erik Verheyen, Walter Salzburger, Jos Snoeks and Axel Meyer, Science, 300: 325-329 (11 April 2003)

Phylogeny Of African Cichlid Fishes As Revealed By Molecular Markers by Werner E. Mayer, Herbert Tichy and Jan Klein., Heredity, 80: 702-714 (1998)

The Species Flocks Of East African Cichlid Fishes: Recent Advances In Molecular Phylogenetics And Population Genetics by Walter Salzburger and Axel Mayer, Naturwissenschaft, 91: 277-290 (20 April 2004)

[5] Evolution of specific features in humans:

Accelerated Evolution Of The ASPM Gene Controlling Brain Size Begins Prior to Human Brain Expansion by Natalay Kouprina, Adam Pavlicek, Ganeshwaran H. Mochida, Gregory Solomon, William Gersch, Young-Ho Yoon, Randall Collura, Maryellen Ruvolo, J. Carl Barrett, C. Geoffrey Woods, Christopher A. Walsh, Jerzy Jurka and Vladimir Larionov, Public Library of Science Biology, 2(5): e126 (23rd March 2004)

Evolution Of The Human ASPM Gene, A Major Determinant Of Brain Size by Jianzhi Ziang, Genetics, 165: 2063-2070 (December 2003)

Evolution Of Olfactory Receptor Genes In The Human Genome by Yoshihito Niimua and Masatoshi Nei, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA., 100(21): 12235-12240 (14 October 2003)

Evolution Of Vertebrate Olfactory Systems by H.L. Eisthen, Brain, Behaviour and Evolution, 50(4): 222-233 (1997).

Human Brain Evolution: Insights from Microarrays by Todd M. Preuss, Mario Cáceres, Michael C. Oldham and Daniel H. Geschwind, Nature Reviews of Genetics, 5(11): 850-860 (November 2004)

Molecular Evolution Of FOXP2, A Gene Involved In Speech And Language by Wolfgang Enard, Molly Przeworski, Simon E. Fisher, Cecilia S. L. Lai, Victor Wiebe, T