Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intelligent designís long march to nowhere
Science & Theology News ^ | 05 December 2005 | Karl Giberson

Posted on 12/05/2005 4:06:56 AM PST by PatrickHenry

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 701-750751-800801-850851-875 next last
To: Last Visible Dog
Pay closer attention

I see that you have the same sort of myopic problem with the word "refuted" that you have with the word "materialism".

First of all, Just because a single argument is refuted (which, in science, by the way, does not mean the same thing as in formal aristotalian proofs) does not mean that ID is refuted.

Probably the most definitive "refutation" in science is the Michaelson-Morley experiment, which put to sleep the notion of an ether through which light waves traveled. However, the experiment did not "refute" ether. It is still possible ether exists, but we haven't detected it as yet. In my opinion, your mind has been poisoned by too much aristotalian logic, performed without adequate respect for its limitations. Science does not operate on the same definitive basis as do logical imperatives in a formal proof.

Second of all, the assumption of a direct conflict between evolutionary theory and ID, such that an argument against evolutionary theory is automatically an argument for ID, is an incorrect assumption. ID and evolutionary theory are not at all obviously engaged in a death-struggle.

(BTW: please state the doable experiment to test natural selection or are you claiming natural selection is not science):

Please state the doable experiment to test galactic astronomy...or do you think galactic astronomy is not a science? When was the last time you created a supernova in a laboratory?

751 posted on 12/07/2005 7:15:53 AM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 747 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
So you are claiming science does not know squat about anything that cannot be "detected"? What about theoretical science?

What's "theoretical science"?

752 posted on 12/07/2005 7:22:14 AM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 729 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
You claim all science all can do is create material explanations of material phenomenon.

This is the definition of materialism:

Not even close. For an avowed aristotalian, you seem to have an extra-ordinary amount of trouble delineating the proper sets in this discussion. Science concerns itself with things that can be detected. Science does not claim that the things it can detect are the only things that exist. Philosophical materialists claim that only what you can detect, exists. Ergo, scientists are not philosophical materialists. Quod Erat Demonstrandum. Do I actually need to state this in formal syllogisms for you to get it?

753 posted on 12/07/2005 7:28:51 AM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 729 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland

However, if you find flaws with the research content of the following, please post them:

Evolution in Brownian Space

Please see the link at 680 (very long)

Cordially,

754 posted on 12/07/2005 7:31:19 AM PST by Diamond (Qui liberatio scelestus trucido inculpatus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 710 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog; edsheppa
It seems to me that if this is the way materialism is defined, the science today is not materialist nor has it been for a very long time.

Tell that to donh.

Whose side of this argument are you on? Did I not just finish saying science is not a materialist enterprise?

755 posted on 12/07/2005 7:36:11 AM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 746 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

That was then, this is now. As science has learned alot more than in the 1800's or 1900's, it has begun to conform more with scriptures. Don't deny it.

The Big Bang, the spontaneous appearance of certain species, polar ice melts, red tide, fish kills, global warming, light being the fundamental kick start, etc. It's silly to ignore the future, scriptures dictates, for the earth.


756 posted on 12/07/2005 7:37:21 AM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 750 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
I find no evidence for a global flood in my studies, archaeology of the western US.

There are many examples of continuous occupation of Native American residential sites 4,000-5,000 years ago, when most authorities would place the flood.

Even more telling, we have continuity of mtDNA across some 11,000 years now; through some of the newly discovered markers in haplogroup A, a migration can be traced from Alaska to the southern tip of South America which spanned 11,000 years. By the pattern of the markers in the mtDNA experts can tell the direction of the migration. This can be cross-checked by radiocarbon dating.

757 posted on 12/07/2005 7:37:54 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 744 | View Replies]

To: donh
It is still possible ether exists, but we haven't detected it as yet.

We really haven't been looking for it, of course. We haven't thought of anything cool for it to do. Before Michaelson and Morley, we thought it was the medium light waves were waving IN. If it had been that, it would have shown up. It didn't show up, so it isn't that.

We may yet need an all-pervading invisible fluid to do something. If we do, we will know from the function we assign it how to detect it. Then, as in the 1880s, we will look for it again, and perhaps find it. Or perhaps again it WON'T show up and we'll rethink.

758 posted on 12/07/2005 7:40:14 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 751 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
What you're doing is basically "Nostradamus science." You're making the Bible right the way Nostradamus apologists make everything he ever wrote a stunning prediction.

It has nothing at all to do with trends in science.

759 posted on 12/07/2005 7:43:29 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 756 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

"Texas Sharpshooter" fallacy.

Of course, there is geologic evidence of rainfall before 4004BCE.


760 posted on 12/07/2005 7:54:45 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 759 | View Replies]

To: donh
As anyone who takes the trouble to look can see, I have accurately characterized the book, if the publishers have.

Wrong. Everybody can see you didn't. You're being intellectually dishonest.

And as for your confusion as to message theory, it appears you are simply ignorant.

761 posted on 12/07/2005 7:58:47 AM PST by Paul Ross (My idea of American policy toward the Soviet Union is simple...It is this, 'We win and they lose.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 708 | View Replies]

To: jennyp

Thank you, I have seen it. It was a clear KO against Thomas.


762 posted on 12/07/2005 8:03:08 AM PST by Paul Ross (My idea of American policy toward the Soviet Union is simple...It is this, 'We win and they lose.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 733 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Yes, it was funny, but not the way you supposed. Remine just took Thomas apart, leaving the conclusion inarguable:

Thomas failed to establish his thesis:
1. Biomolecules aren't "independent" evidence for macroevolution - they cannot stand-alone - they aren't "fingerprints." Rather their very meaning must be interpreted beside other evidences - even Thomas did this.
2. Biomolecules don't "compel" us to macroevolution. Haldane's Dilemma remains unsolved. Evolution doesn't predict hierarchy, biochemical unity, abundant convergence, concerted evolution, or relative-rarity of enzymes for digesting the world's most abundant food compound - cellulose. If evolution predicts anything on these matters, it predicts contrary to what we observe. And that's just some biomolecular evidences.
3. Message Theory scientifically explains these patterns and more. Thomas's arguments against Message Theory all misrepresented it. He now responds that he personally finds the theory "illogical and unconvincing" - for reasons he chose not to reveal! Thus, he failed to explicitly address - much less dislodge - Message Theory.

763 posted on 12/07/2005 8:04:32 AM PST by Paul Ross (My idea of American policy toward the Soviet Union is simple...It is this, 'We win and they lose.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 734 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
As anyone who takes the trouble to look can see, I have accurately characterized the book, if the publishers have.

Wrong. Everybody can see you didn't. You're being intellectually dishonest.

Balderdash. This is a bluff. Show me specifically how my characterization is different from the explanation given and quoted back to you.

And as for your confusion as to message theory, it appears you are simply ignorant.

Than, pray tell, enlighten me; what is the course content of message theory Remane has taken a phud in?

764 posted on 12/07/2005 8:05:57 AM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 761 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Remine is a shuck-and-jive furniture-chewing ham amateur magician. There's no way to spin that debate. Anyone who reads it will know what I mean.
765 posted on 12/07/2005 8:08:28 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 763 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog; donh

Do you agree, LVD, that science is not materialist?


766 posted on 12/07/2005 8:10:43 AM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 755 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow
Your point is well taken, though I was not intentionally trying to move the goalposts. I agree that the question of the actual pathway, and any ontologically possible pathway are two different questions. That the Eygptians could have used a block and tackle to build the pyramids, even if we don't actually know if that's the way they did it, is true, but the analogy assumes the very thing in question, and curiously, even in the face of the fact that we KNOW the pyramids were DESIGNED, while the Darwinian explanation is that the BF was not. If one said that the pyramids are the result of wind erosion then some skepticism would be warranted, wouldn't it? The possiblity question refers to ontological possiblity, not the bare logical possiblity that the pyramids are the result of wind erosion.

Cordially,

767 posted on 12/07/2005 8:12:14 AM PST by Diamond (Qui liberatio scelestus trucido inculpatus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 685 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
It was a clear KO against Thomas.

You mean on own goal by ReMine, don't you? I mean, consider this example. He says

Humans transpose designs anywhere useful (into cars, buildings, etcetera) Transposition is ordinary design practice. But life’s designer avoided that.
But then just above in his chart the transposition row lists lateral transfer and endosymbiosis as examples. Both are very well supported by the evidence. Unless he is arguing that lateral transfer doesn't happen and endosymbioisis didn't happen, it appears "life's designer" does employ transposition.
768 posted on 12/07/2005 8:43:14 AM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 762 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
... ID proponents can name any molecular system and demand that those who support natural evolution not only show hypothetical pathways but demonstrate those pathways through physical experimentation?

Yes! It is the ones who support natural evolution who make the claim that such molecular systems evolved in the past by numerous, step by step modifications of precursors. As that is essentially a historical claim, at least reconstructions of the actual pathways and assemblies would be warranted, supported by detailed, testable data, and failing that, at least detailed, testable alternatives. If Behe has performed no other service, at least he has provoked some biologists to try to provide a detailed Darwinian accounting of these molecular systems. Darwinists should be be glad for such challenges that provide even more opportunity to demonstrate scientifically the truth of their hypotheses, but I don't see much evidence that many of them are. Quite the contrary.

Where would this end?

When does science and the quest for knowledge end?

And how do you propose to discount the argument that the Designer may be intervening in the petri-dish?

What is that argument?

Cordially,

769 posted on 12/07/2005 8:58:57 AM PST by Diamond (Qui liberatio scelestus trucido inculpatus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 688 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
"Where would this end?"

When does science and the quest for knowledge end?

Well, actually it ends the moment a supernatural entity can be undetectably altering the results of observations.

Anyway, your answer sounds to me like you just want carte blanche to propose forever that any system whose pathways haven't yet been demonstrated might be IC, and therefore naturalistic evolution isn't yet acceptable to you. That amounts to you setting a bar for the acceptance of naturalistic evolution that can never be overcome.

"And how do you propose to discount the argument that the Designer may be intervening in the petri-dish?"

What is that argument?

The argument that we've had before. Once you propose that a Designer of unknown motivation and powers can undetectably intervene, then how can you ever trust the results of any naturalist experiment. If BF appear in the petri dish, how do you know that your proposed Designer didn't tweak them into existence? Or are you going to set limits on the Motives/Power/Detectability of your hypothetical Designer?

770 posted on 12/07/2005 9:26:22 AM PST by Thatcherite (F--ked in the afterlife, bullying feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 769 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Remine is a shuck-and-jive furniture-chewing ham amateur magician

An idiotic ad hominem aspersion...even for you, apparently made since you can't deal with his superior mathematical logic and credentials.

His hobby in magic only helps inform us of how he had perceived the sleight-of-hand deceptions of the naturalists...and helps expose it to all.

There is no way you can spin that debate. You lost.

Anyone who reads it will know what I mean.

771 posted on 12/07/2005 10:19:48 AM PST by Paul Ross (My idea of American policy toward the Soviet Union is simple...It is this, 'We win and they lose.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 765 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

His credentials? What credentials? Walter ReMine is an EE. How does that give him special expertise in the area of evolutionary biology?


772 posted on 12/07/2005 10:33:40 AM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 771 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
Anyway, your answer sounds to me like you just want carte blanche to propose forever that any system whose pathways haven't yet been demonstrated might be IC...

I could submit such proposals till I'm blue in the face, but what would effectively put an end to it is detailed, testable reconstructions demonstrating that such structures can occur in a gradual, step by step Darwinian process, in which case Occam's razor would suffice nicely to finish off a design inference, or at least render it superfluous. One doesn't need to invoke intelligent agency where a naturalistic, undirected mechanism will do.

As far as the methodological approach to the epistemological dilemma of a putative Designer tweaking the Petri dish, I've never heard of anyone not doing an experiment or suggesting it invalid because of lack of direct knowledge or certainty of possible motives/powers of any designer. That type of Humean certainty is not a necessary part of a scientific design inference anyway.

Cordially,

773 posted on 12/07/2005 10:40:36 AM PST by Diamond (Qui liberatio scelestus trucido inculpatus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 770 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
As far as the methodological approach to the epistemological dilemma of a putative Designer tweaking the Petri dish, I've never heard of anyone not doing an experiment or suggesting it invalid because of lack of direct knowledge or certainty of possible motives/powers of any designer. That type of Humean certainty is not a necessary part of a scientific design inference anyway.

How can it not be? Please explain why the Designer would definitely not intervene in whatever experiment one constructs that is related to proving or disproving ID? It is you who is proposing an interventionary tinkering Designer. How do you know when the Designer is tinkering, and when the Designer is not tinkering?

774 posted on 12/07/2005 11:27:07 AM PST by Thatcherite (F--ked in the afterlife, bullying feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 773 | View Replies]

To: Diamond

Incidentally, your politeness is a breath of fresh air. after the rantings I am facing on another thread.

Kind Regards


775 posted on 12/07/2005 11:28:57 AM PST by Thatcherite (F--ked in the afterlife, bullying feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 773 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
How do you know when the Designer is tinkering, and when the Designer is not tinkering?

That's it in a nutshell! Elegantly put.

(PLACEMARKER)

776 posted on 12/07/2005 11:42:11 AM PST by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: Art of Unix Programming by Raymond)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 774 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa
You mean on own goal by ReMine, don't you?

No. You took a statement out of context and omitted the vast majority of the argument. Before you rushed off to note Remine's listing of transpositions in the chart he developed, showing where the evolutionists made their stands, he then explained his view, which you conveniently omitted with your over-hasty and misrepresentative 'But':

Here is the WHOLE passage:

Evolutionists could forever circumvent those fossil difficulties, if complex traits were rampantly transposed between morphologically-distant lineages – here called Transpositions. This exceedingly powerful evolutionary explanation could potentially explain-away the twofold absences of gradualism and clear-cut ancestors/lineages. (Indeed, that notion lay at the core of Syvanen’s evolutionary theory, which assumes lateral DNA transfer between higher-lifeforms.[4]) Transposition patterns, if sufficiently sturdy, would nullify the fossil record’s testimony against common descent – therefore Message Theory predicts life’s design avoids Transposition patterns.

Humans transpose designs anywhere useful (into cars, buildings, etcetera) Transposition is ordinary design practice. But life’s designer avoided that. Life’s designs are re-used, not randomly anywhere useful, but in confined “theme and variation” patterns that resist Transposition interpretations. This feature profoundly distinguishes life from human-designed systems.

The substantial absence of Transposition patterns from macroorganisms (at morphological, embryological, and biomolecular levels): Resists Transposition explanations(E9), Syvanen’s theory, and “gene’s from Space” (Hoyle’s theory) Resists Exobiology(E13) Shows life’s designer is unordinary

Life’s hierarchy patterns (cladistic and phenetic): Supplies biodiversity for above-named purposes – while leaving “ancestors” out!(E1) Unifies all life together, as product of one designer Resists Transposition explanations(E9) Provides background, against which, “convergences”(E6) are ‘seen.’ Allows deep (rather than superficial) embedding of bio-message; making it: resistant to mutation, and inseparable from survival Resists incompleteness(E12). The above properties retain perceptibility even when lifeforms are severely unavailable.

These properties are vital for Message Theory.

The traits evolutionists call “convergences”(here including “parallelisms”), favor Message Theory – which explains their abundance. {Similar arguments apply to biomolecular patterns called “concerted evolution.”(E14)} These complex designs are: sufficiently similar (to demand special explanation), yet sufficiently non-identical (to negate Transposition/Atavism explanations), and systematically-placed (to negate explanation by common descent). Evolutionists are left with their least plausible explanation – independent origin of similar complex designs – such as your eyes and octopus eyes!

“Convergences” are abundant (at morphological, embryological, and biomolecular levels)[16]) because they: Help link diverse life-groups together, as products of one designer Help thwart attempts to ‘impose’ ancestors and lineages onto life’s pattern[17] Demand explanation, while resisting naturalistic explanations

Hence, he is totally consistent...and he hoists the naturalists by their petards.

777 posted on 12/07/2005 11:44:00 AM PST by Paul Ross (My idea of American policy toward the Soviet Union is simple...It is this, 'We win and they lose.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 768 | View Replies]

To: jennyp

I wish it was mine. Right Wing Professor, I think produced that precis last time I proposed that particular anti-ID argument (if memory serves).


778 posted on 12/07/2005 11:55:18 AM PST by Thatcherite (F--ked in the afterlife, bullying feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 776 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
I don't think I took it out of context, but I see you're employing a seldom-used obfuscatory tactic of adding extraneous non-context. For example, what does convergence have to do with transposition? (Answer: nothing.)

Does ReMine or does he not say that life avoids transpositions? Well, that is false. Transposition is rampant. He mentions lateral gene transfer but omits stuff like retrotransposons and hybridization and ordinary chromosomal crossover, the latter two being fundamental drivers of evolution. It is simply ridiculous to say that life eschews transposition. One might even say that if an organism doesn't protect its genome, it will be a victim of transposition.

The guy's a kook. To claim that biology will resist naturalistic explanations when the evidence for evolution has convinced generations of biologists is just plain kooky.

779 posted on 12/07/2005 12:23:41 PM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 777 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
An idiotic ad hominem aspersion...even for you, apparently made since you can't deal with his superior mathematical logic and credentials.

I can understand Thomas just fine, despite his credentials being at least as "superior" as Remine's. That in fact is my point. Thomas has the goods for his position, presents them clearly, and explains clearly why they mean what he says they do.

By comparison, Remine sounds like Professor Irwin Corey. All smoke, mirrors, bafflegab, distraction, and evasion. He revels in being hard to understand. It is his refuge.

One thing that jumped out at me, having been exposed to some of Remine's arguments on previous FR threads, was that he saved his Haldane's Dilemma strawman for the third segment when he knew he was having the last word and couldn't be rebutted. Let's bring some of that forward.

Thomas cites "how simple genetic mutations ... can also produce radically new body plans."
Thomas wasn't making a theoretic point. It's a fact. We knock out one or two HOX or UBX genes and get fruit flies with stump legs on their abdomens, four wings instead of two, etc. But Remine waves it away with a strawman argument from the 1950s. It takes nerve to try to wave away a hard fact with a bad model.

But that runs into Haldane's Dilemma - a classic evolutionary problem a leading evolutionist acknowledges, "was never solved".[3] Haldane showed that species with low reproduction (higher vertebrates) could substitute beneficial mutations no faster than one per 300 generations, on average.[4, 5]
Now, I've already given you two sources on why Remine is an ass for still clutching at this straw. "No faster than one per 300 generations?"

Didn't get any reply from you on this post.

Then there was this post.

Remine is more buffoon than charlatan. You just have to know hocus-pocus when you're hearing it.

780 posted on 12/07/2005 12:29:06 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 771 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
Thank you for your replies. I enjoy the exchanges, and I usually learn more than I impart. I find that if I respect others and treat them the way I would like to be treated, the conversation is more substantive and reduces the need for flame retardant apparel.

I'm mulling over the tinkering designer challenge, but work calls.

Cordially,

781 posted on 12/07/2005 12:37:04 PM PST by Diamond (Qui liberatio scelestus trucido inculpatus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 775 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
We knock out one or two HOX or UBX genes and get fruit flies with stump legs on their abdomens, four wings instead of two, etc.

My own lack of expertise is clearly demonstrated in the previous post. UBX is a HOX gene.

782 posted on 12/07/2005 12:38:55 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 780 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Here is the WHOLE passage:

Wow! Is there a school where ReMine learned to write scientific-seeming gobbledegook like that? Joyce would be proud.

783 posted on 12/07/2005 12:39:25 PM PST by Thatcherite (F--ked in the afterlife, bullying feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 777 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

Google the postmodernism generator.


784 posted on 12/07/2005 12:45:42 PM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 783 | View Replies]

To: js1138

This is very true; it's not random chance, it's governed by the laws of chemistry, and when you apply those, you find out the formation isn't just highly improbable, it's improbable to the point of being impossible. Behe goes into some of the chemistry in his book Darwin's Black Box.

Just like Sodium and Chlorine will always form ordered crystals when evaporated from solution, there are some chemical reactions that will NOT occur no matter how much time you give them. Graphite turning to diamond under STP, Helium-Oxide, Lithium permanganate, Oxygen Sulfate, etc.


785 posted on 12/07/2005 1:00:46 PM PST by frgoff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
One final point on clarity vs obscurity. Can anyone tell how ReMine would have answered Thomas's challenge in part 3 if he had in fact answered it?

I challenge ReMine to give a simple answer to this simple question in his Round 3 response: "Does Walter ReMine think humans and chimpanzees descended from a recent common ancestor?"

786 posted on 12/07/2005 1:03:47 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 771 | View Replies]

To: frgoff
...and when you apply those, you find out the formation isn't just highly improbable, it's improbable to the point of being impossible. Behe goes into some of the chemistry in his book Darwin's Black Box.

Devastating if it were true, but it isn't. Among other problems, you can't calculate the probability of a long series of events without knowing the steps in the series. Behe has just extended the god of the gaps argument to a currently unsolved problem.

Asserting that a problem cannot be solved because it has not yet been solved is the single greatest evil possible in the world, because it denies reason and imagination.

787 posted on 12/07/2005 1:08:24 PM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 785 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Asserting that a problem cannot be solved because it has not yet been solved is the single greatest evil possible in the world, because it denies reason and imagination.

The most evil thing in the world is hyperbole.

788 posted on 12/07/2005 1:12:29 PM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 787 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

The most evil thing in the world is being a smartass.


789 posted on 12/07/2005 1:13:18 PM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 788 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
"No faster than one per 300 generations?"

You can't read contextually, can you. This was for HIGHER VERTEBRATES. Remember that? Guess not.

This misbegotten effort by you to obfuscate your chalatan ways....is manifest. Your side is doing the hocus-pocus and to label Remine the "charlatan" is dishonesty on steroid. You are shown up when you misquote him this way. SO, wake up and smell the coffee.

And medved was the one always thumped on the Haldane Dilemma, not vice versa. Seems to me he did the same as you, misquoting.

So you are busted: All smoke, mirrors, bafflegab, distraction, and evasion.

Yup, that's you.

790 posted on 12/07/2005 1:22:18 PM PST by Paul Ross (My idea of American policy toward the Soviet Union is simple...It is this, 'We win and they lose.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 780 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
Yes.

The School is called the ToE.

791 posted on 12/07/2005 1:23:54 PM PST by Paul Ross (My idea of American policy toward the Soviet Union is simple...It is this, 'We win and they lose.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 783 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Devastating if it were true, but it isn't. Among other problems, you can't calculate the probability of a long series of events without knowing the steps in the series.

Sorry, it is true. Unlike biological evolution, you've trod on the ground of Physics and Chemistry, true, experimental sciences. Chemists and Physicists don't do archaeological digs and declare they've found a missing link. Chemists and Physicists look at actual, existing chemicals and perform experiments with empirical analysis.

These chemicals have been analyzed. We have re-created some in the laboratory and know the steps involved. Others we've analyzed in the cell as they are being manufactured. The only probabilities involved are the ones that determine chemical reactions: electron affinity, orbitals, activation energies, etc.

We have observed empirically, using the known laws of physics and chemistry, that the intermediate compounds in the steps of formation are chemically unstable and will spontaneously break down outside the specialized environment of the living cell.

Asserting that a problem cannot be solved because it has not yet been solved is the single greatest evil possible in the world, because it denies reason and imagination.

I never said the problem of the origins of life cannot be solved. I said that spontaneous generation is categorically ruled out by the laws of physics. This is a step toward a solution because we have now found one explanation that will not work and we can quit wasting time pursuing it.

However, your comment of devastating shows that you are an idealogue on this issue. The idea of finding out that spontaneous generation, or other purely naturalistic explanation is devastating shows that you are NOT interested in going wherever the evidence leads, but that you will accept one and only one destination.

792 posted on 12/07/2005 1:33:57 PM PST by frgoff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 787 | View Replies]

To: donh
I see that you have the same sort of myopic problem with the word "refuted" that you have with the word "materialism".

Sorry, none of the arguments have been refuted either and many of the quotes imply all argument have been refuted. Keep digging.

793 posted on 12/07/2005 1:36:05 PM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 751 | View Replies]

To: frgoff
This is a step toward a solution because we have now found one explanation that will not work and we can quit wasting time pursuing it.

Imagin my surprise that you would say this.

794 posted on 12/07/2005 1:37:26 PM PST by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 792 | View Replies]

To: donh
What's "theoretical science"?

Many forms of mathamatics, theoretical chemistry, and theoretical physics (to name a few).

Try these links:

National Center for Theoretical Sciences

Michio Kahu, Theoretical Physicist

Theoretical Physics defined in the Wikipedia

795 posted on 12/07/2005 1:45:54 PM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 752 | View Replies]

To: Junior

"Partly I believe this can be chalked up to the ID proponents not having clue one on how to test for design. Their whole thesis revolves around, "this looks like it was designed, so therefore it must have been -- and besides, Darwin sucks." "

I would tend to agree with you about testing and the scientific method if it should be written into text books as fact. I believe intelligent design happened, but perhaps advocates of teaching such should be compared with written accounts of creation and scientifically tested in a lab.

Einstein believed in intelligent design. He prayed to God that he would uncover the secret of light. The bible says that God is light. Einstein set-up scientific process that explains light and transformation to matter. Could you quantify God is light? It sure explains a lot about E=MC2, the big bang and the process of creation. It also explains how God is an etheral being, not constrained by time. In fact, at the speed of light time ceases to exist, it stops. Science quantifies much of the creation story and perhaps that statement alone should be written in text books. But demanding it be written into text books as the scientific process is, well that is a bit premature.


796 posted on 12/07/2005 1:47:05 PM PST by quant5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa
Do you agree, LVD, that science is not materialist?

Science is not limited to the material realm. Remember, thoughts are not material yet science can study the thought process.

797 posted on 12/07/2005 1:52:20 PM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 766 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog; donh

Uh oh.

Am I in trouble again?

;)


798 posted on 12/07/2005 1:56:38 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 747 | View Replies]

To: Last Visible Dog
Give us an example where a supernatural explanation has been demonstrated to be superior to natural explanations.

What the heck does supernatural have to do with what I said. BTW: medicine, human flight, and electricity where all considered supernatural at one time. Supernatural is merely beyond our current understanding of the natural world.

That is not the sense in which any literate person from Thomas Aquinus on has used it.

It has always meant "transcending the powers or ordinary course of nature"

But if your "what will eventually discovered to have a natural explanation" is to be used, how will that erxplanation ever be found if science declines to look for it. In other words
Perhaps you can tell us how science can abandon empiricism and still be science.

799 posted on 12/07/2005 2:15:05 PM PST by Oztrich Boy ( the Wedge Document ... offers a message of hope for Muslims - Mustafa Akyol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 650 | View Replies]

To: donh
Not even close.

Yeah. Right.

For an avowed aristotalian

I never claimed to be an "aristotalian"

Science concerns itself with things that can be detected.

Tell that to Theoretical Physicists

Science concerns itself with things that can be detected. Science does not claim that the things it can detect are the only things that exist.

So you are claiming non-material things exist - but science can't concern itself with them yet science is not materialistic. Yeah. Right.

Philosophical materialists claim that only what you can detect, exists. Ergo, scientists are not philosophical materialists.

Yeah. Right. You claim science can only concern itself with material things yet science is not materialistic. Right. Fancy bit of tapdancng you are doing here. The text of YOUR definition of science is the definition of Materialism. In your definitions - in regards to science, only the material exists. Then you go on to try and claim science knows there are non-material things but somehow science is unable to study them.

HINT: All thought is based on some sort of philosophy. All thinking is based on a priori assumptions. Your definition of science claims science has an a priori assumption of materialism. That was may point all along. Materialism is the dogma (the a priori assumption) of many that claim to be men of science. Materialism is not a requirement of science any more than Christianity was a true requirement of science is medieval europe.

Ergo, scientists are not philosophical materialists. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Sorry dude - nearly nonsensical rambling does not constitute proof.

You claim science can only deal with the material yet science is not materialist - like your earlier statements, that statement is completely contradictory and is certainly not proof.

800 posted on 12/07/2005 2:22:31 PM PST by Last Visible Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 753 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 701-750751-800801-850851-875 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson