SMU profs protest intelligent design conference

Dallas Morning News ^ | 03/24/2007 | JEFFREY WEISS

[rudy45]

Genesis 7:11-12

And yes, it was a global, not a local flood.. Why? because God said there never would be another flood like this one. But of course there have been local floods. God can't lie, so the flood of Noah MUST have been global. Genesis 8:21

[Stingray]

"The theory of evolution, and most other historical sciences, are becoming increasingly accurate at this type of prediction."

Also called "retrodiction". Sorry. Not buying it.

[js1138]

Also called "retrodiction". Sorry. Not buying it.

Does this mean you don't accept forensic evidence in court cases?

[rudy45]

How do you know the Noahic flood was falsified?

[Coyoteman]

How do you know the Noahic flood was falsified?

I do archaeology. I am very familiar with 4300 year old sediments.

In the western US we have cultural continuity across the 4300 time period.

We also have a mitochondrial DNA record across this time period, with no replacement by Middle Eastern DNA.

The major floods we see were in Washington state at the end of the last ice age (google "channeled scablands"). They are readily identified and dated. A global flood would have 1) been much larger and more easily discovered, and 2) eliminated evidence of the earlier flood.

Early geologists seeking to prove the flood largely gave up by about 1830.

[rudy45]

So you're putting your faith in the geological evidence.

[js1138]

So you're putting your faith in the geological evidence.

Is that a trick question, or do you think following rational investigations to logical conclusions is a bad idea?

[MHalblaub]

"It's not a guess; it's a stopgap used for mere convenience until you provide something better ([...])."

I count the result as a stopgap as well until you provide something better.
If you want to prove something then you have to get your correct data and not I.


"The math in question works for *sequencing*, by the way, so DNA and RNA sequencing are both covered."

You and the author are putting together DNA and poems by chance. Neither Shakespeare nor any other poet works that way nor does it evolution.
Evolution has an element that works with chance but evolution is not chance.
I guess you don't know how evolution works.


"You should read Rasmussen's abiogenegis experiments."

I asked you about the possibility for some chemical compounds and not about abiogenesis.
If Rasmussen (how many Danes are out there?) showed something it was that it didn't work in the way he thought.


"Utter nonsense. You can *absolutely* apply the author's "simple" (in quotes because you can't show better) math to sequencing RNA and DNA genetic data." (Post #112)

You can't.
I can show you how fast you'll get "To be or not to be" with an evolutionary algorithm. The authors math works just with "dice".


"...and how "life went on" is clearly by Design in the case of modern gentically altered animals such as pigs that make human growth hormone." (Post #112)

True, in the case of a genetically altered pig it is design by men.
And also true for the rest of biology.
Evolution is a design process. I think an intelligent one.

Do you think this is a prove for the hypothesis of ID at work?
No, because this is not predicted by ID. ID itself predicts nothing.

Before you start arguing with IC I want to read your definition of IC. Feel free to copy any definition you'll find on the Internet.
And a definition for ID would be nice to.
Or just ask Mr. Behe for the latest definitions.

[rudy45]

Not a trick question at all. But now that the issue has come up, I would argue the idea of drawing a "rational conclusion" presupposes that the human mind is the supreme arbiter of truth, doesn't it?

[js1138]

It's what we have. Unless you are superhuman. Or sub.

[Southack]

"I can show you how fast you'll get "To be or not to be" with an evolutionary algorithm." - MHalblaub

OK. Show me.

[Southack]

"Evolution is a design process. I think an intelligent one." - MHalblaub

Nope.

[Southack]

"Evolution has an element that works with chance but evolution is not chance. I guess you don't know how evolution works."

Per the math shown earlier in this thread via link, and per the sole example listed so far in this thread (e.g. the pig that manufactures human growth hormone), Evolution doesn't work at all.

Perhaps you have a better example, but you (and your peers) haven't shown it yet.

[Sloth]

Sure, but how does that conflict with evolution?

ID doesn't conflict with evolution, either.

[Coyoteman]

So you're putting your faith in the geological evidence.

Trust, not faith.

And it is far from just geological evidence. Do you recall my mention of DNA? Archaeology? Cultural continuity?

To that list you can add a lot of other interrelated fields.

I fear it is you who is relying on faith. That's fine, but please don't mistake religious belief for scientific evidence (hmmmm, there's a tagline in there somewhere).

[rudy45]

Trust, not faith

What, in your view, is the difference?

Why is your trust/faith in "evidence" any more valid than my trust/faith in God's word?

Also, please answer a previous question: if, tomorrow, you hold a pencil and let go, which direction do you think it will go?

[Coyoteman]

Trust, not faith

What, in your view, is the difference?

Here are some definitions I put together a while back (from a google search, with additions from this thread). I am including only the sections on theory. These might help explain how science approaches things:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

The full list of definitions is here.

[rudy45]

Thanks, but I'm still waiting for an answer: what happens to the pencil that you let go of? What direction does it go? Up, down, sideways? Does it make a difference if you do it tomorrow, or next week, or next year? On what basis do you form your answer?

[MHalblaub]

"Per the math shown earlier in this thread via link, and per the sole example listed so far in this thread (e.g. the pig that manufactures human growth hormone), Evolution doesn't work at all."

You tried to prove with your linked math that abiogenesis is impossible. And I showed you that you need the correct initial data to calculate something worth to argue about. Nothing about evolution.
The pig with human growth hormones is a good example for the theory of common descant.

How does any of your examples disprove evolution? By the way, evolution is a fact as gravity. The theory of gravity and the theory of evolution is something else.

[MHalblaub]

"Show me."

Evolutionary algorithm for Shakespeare

1) Start with something.
(We will not look at abiogenesis of language)

2) Select the better ones.
(Selection criteria is the sum of the distances of a letter to the aimed one.)

3) Recombination of the selection
(I'll call it letter sex)

4) Mutation
(The evil that only causes harm.)

5) Continue with 2)

I'll make a small program and tell you the average passes of the loop to reach the aim "to be or not to be".

Any complaints?