Boston Marathon explosions......

[moevillini]

Ok, so our understanding of science is different I guess. I do not want to repeat again what science is, but Behe did no science with his ID speculation.
Evidence leading to conclusion is science. Not knowing how it works and saying it is to complicated and putting it on supernatural is religion.

Where does "I know the answers, but I'm not telling you." fall?

 

[Sandy Braille]

I realize that the Darwin cult has denied that Darwin's theory was disproved. That is why I call them Darwiniacs: people who cling to a non-disprovable pseudoscience.

What is non-disprovable? The process of evolution itself? Yeah, because we see it happen on a ****ing daily basis. Of course it can't be disproven.

I just love when Darwiniacs use general claims about "numerous scientists" after I specify a scientist. Here is some specific scientists who admit Cultists don't have a scientific refutation for Behe.

Tom Cavalier-Smith(biologist): "For none of the cases mentioned by Behe is there yet a comprehensive and detailed explanation of the probable steps in the evolution of the observed complexity."
Robert Dorit(molecular biologist): "In a narrow sense, Behe is correct when he argues that we do not yet fully understand the evolution of the flagellar motor or blood clotting cascade."

You named two scientists. If I went to the Biology Department of my school right now, I could find tens of many who DO refute it. Quit living in a fairy-tale-- most educated scientists support evolution, and it isn't because the're Darwinists. It's because they use common sense, something you seem to lack.

But the culties still have faith in the Darwinian mechanism of evolution. They'll figure out how to prove it eventually. Just like Mormon apologists just haven't found the scientific evidence for their faith either.

*****

Irreducible complexity ain't about speculation. It is Darwin's own test to disprove his theory. If you don't have such a test or refuse to acknowledge such a test has failed then you stop being science based and become religion based.

Quit bringing religion into this. Everytime you separate the two sides as 'cultists' and 'non-believers' makes me want to vomit-- have you not realized that there are THOUSANDS of students, professors, and normal people who fall down the middle?


Quit polarizing the debate, and generalizing the religious with holding your garbage opinions


I am genuinely upset that I replied to you.

 

[Stoked]

What is non-disprovable? The process of evolution itself? Yeah, because we see it happen on a ****ing daily basis. Of course it can't be disproven.





You named two scientists. If I went to the Biology Department of my school right now, I could find tens of many who DO refute it. Quit living in a fairy-tale-- most educated scientists support evolution, and it isn't because the're Darwinists. It's because they use common sense, something you seem to lack.



Quit bringing religion into this. Everytime you separate the two sides as 'cultists' and 'non-believers' makes me want to vomit-- have you not realized that there are THOUSANDS of students, professors, and normal people who fall down the middle?


Quit polarizing the debate, and generalizing the religious with holding your garbage opinions

I am genuinely upset that I replied to you.

Good luck with that...

 

[PearlWatson]

Bill Dembski's work in "No Free Lunch" is worthless as a description of actual evolutionary processes. His Law of Conservation of Information is disproved trivially. His Specified Complex Information is an oxymoron, since specified means it has a description, and complex means it has no good description.

What Dembski has never done is give a reliable, usable test to detect anything he claims. So, in response to a comment about being testable and predictable, Dembski is an anti-example.

Well guess what? I find repeatedly accidental, and predictably random to be oxymorons.

This is where you can't blame me for preferring Dembski's definitions over yours when it comes to complexity and specificity in information theory. You really can't fault me for refusing to argue with him when he claims they can coexist, provides example of coexistence, and applies it to biology.

 

[PearlWatson]

With regard to the flagellum, Matzke laid out one possible path by which it could have been constructed.
This has happened with every example Behe has proposed. Within a couple of years, someone points out that it's not at all impossible.

Behe's testimony at the Dover trial addresses the problems of this claim after he was given a stack of articles, that supposedly addressed Darwin's proposed pathway, by opposing cousel:

"The literature has no detailed rigorous explanations for how complex biochemical systems could arise by a random mutation and natural selection and these articles do not address that."

Just because when you take away the trigger, you don't have a functional mousetrap, doesn't mean what you have is completely non-functional. For example, in the absence of anything else, a wire spring-mounted to a bit of wood makes a great tie clip. In evolutionary theory, all that you need is some purpose for the construct to be preserved. It doesn't have to have a single, well-defined purposeat any point, much less throughout it's history.

To support Darwin's theoretical mechanism (random mutation and natural selection) one has to start at "a bit of wood", and show that a "bit of wood" arose by accident and how that "bit of wood" makes the animal "more fit" than without it. Every supposed slight step has to be accidental/undirected and your example appears to be yet another one that doesn't address Darwin's "possible path." In fact it appears to support the nonaccidental/directed pathway of ID theory.

 

[MVP]

"The literature has no detailed rigorous explanations for how complex biochemical systems could arise by a random mutation and natural selection and these articles do not address that."
.

Bruno was burned at the stake because few hundreds years ago he was saying that Sun is a star and there are numerous other Sun like stars in the universe. He was declared heretic and killed in the name of god - because nobody had "detailed rigorous explanations" or could prove he was right. What can't be explained now will be later. That's the beauty about science as it is constantly moving forward and smashing old superstitious supernatural claims on daily basis. If somebody would have claimed that it is impossible to clone animals 100 years ago and it is only god who can create life without "natural mating act" ... what we would be saying about that claim now?
I just can't believe how somebody like Behe can simply give up and say it is to complicated so it must be supernatural and make pseudoscience out of it. No wonder nobody in scientific world takes him seriously.
This sums it up nicely. Krauss kills Behe in this talk. Just annihilates it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKkkQygcam4

 

[PearlWatson]

ah... the infamous book which is a laughing stock for anybody who has any education in biology/evolution/paleontology. I knew it was going to surface in this discussion sooner or later.
Are you claiming it has any scientific value?
Even in your own country it was dismissed as a joke. Country which is most religious from all western countries.

On December 20, 2005, the US District Court ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature and the board's requirement endorsing intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in science classes unconstitutional on the grounds that its inclusion violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

I don't pretend to know what Of Pandas and People says, or how scientifically rigorous it is (I'd bet it is more scientifically rigorous than the atheist driven dogma they force onto government school students). The little I know about it is what the Darwiniac counsel brought up in questioning Behe (he ain't one of it's authors).

But the content of the reference book ain't what matters. It is the fact that Darwiniacs used the court system to prevent students from simply hearing about any possible dissent from the official state creation myth.

I already addressed the relevance of the Dover ruling to what constitutes science. You are simply repeating yourself.

 

[PearlWatson]

The majority of scientists that publish in peer-reviewed journals, and scientists generally, are God believers.

The only alternative origin of life theory Darwiniacs have allowed to be published is the ID theory proposed by the atheist Crick called "Directed Panspermia." Crick simply attributes the directed intelligent activity he observes to "space aliens" rather than "God." I can only assume that Darwiniacs considered a theory involving aliens sending rocket ships to Earth as scientifically plausible enough to publish because the author was a God-denier.

Actually there was another peer-reviewed article on ID that slipped through, but once the Darwiniac witch burners caught it they got the author fired.

 

[MVP]

Creationism is a social, political, and maybe psychological problem. Definitely NOT a scientific problem. There is a reason the people who defend it are called "conservatives", they want to conserve things the way they are or were. They do not want change. They are scared to death of change. That is why it is useless to try to convince them by scientific arguments.
PW do you know what % of people in USA answers to question " Earth orbits the Sun and it takes 1 year to do complete it" true or false correctly?

 

[PearlWatson]

it is to complicated so it must be supernatural

If you consider an unseen force "supernatural" then gravity is supernatural.

I consider your assumption that accidents and randomness is the essence of what nature is to be more absurd than order/design directed by an intelligent force.

I mean I don't know if you realize this but the design code(DNA) was already discovered. Life has a blueprint. I don't understand how atheists can still insist that in order for something to be "natural" it has to be accidental, and still be considered rational.

 

[MVP]

I am quite frankly disappointed in this discussion as you can't answer ( or ignoring ) any of my questions. But I guess it is hard to agree with undeniable proof.
So if it says so in the bible it must be right? I think it is time to end this then.

 

[One Brow]

Well guess what? I find repeatedly accidental, and predictably random to be oxymorons.

You don't always have to lead with your limitations. Repeatedly means "happens with moderate or greater frequency", and accidental is "not according to the usual occurence". There is nothing oxymoronic about saying that that things occasionally don't go according to plan. Phenomena are predictably random when any attempt to formulate a pattern regarding them can be shown to be erroneous; that is, it is the randomness itself that can be predicted.

This is where you can't blame me for preferring Dembski's definitions over yours when it comes to complexity and specificity in information theory.

I have no definitions. I can read a little in information theory, but don't know nearly enough to come up with unique or original definitions. However, information theory is a well-recognized branch of mathematics with many experts.

You really can't fault me for refusing to argue with him when he claims they can coexist, provides example of coexistence, and applies it to biology.

I certainly don't expect you to argue with Dembski. I'm not sure I'd be up to the task without serious help from actual experts. It takes very little math knowledge to put up a wall of obfuscation, and some expertise to demolish such a wall accurately.

However, when the experts do weigh in, it's appropriate to acknowledge they know enough to say Dembski's ideas are worthless. I don't expect you to acknowledge it, but that has more to do with your posting history than the information involved.