Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1151-1175 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Oct 22, 2010 4:04:28 PM PDT
OM says:
M,
"This is reverse engineering writ large."

Any actual evidence or just bare assertions?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 22, 2010 4:08:12 PM PDT
OM says:
M
I asked: - - - "and explain why it could not have evolved."

You said: "Statistics"

Please provide a citation to where that is shown to be the case. Or do you believe it even though you don't have any such evidence? Simply saying "Statistics" is so transparently ludicrous that I'm surprised you have the nerve to write it. Don't you feel silly believing all these things without any actual evidence? If you have the evidence, please provide a citation. If you don't, then why do you believe it?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 22, 2010 4:11:59 PM PDT
OM says:
M,
You said: "Their worldview precludes design as an option, which causes them to look more and more ridiculous as they bungle around trying to figure out how such cybernetic systems could have emerged naturally."

Yet there are people out there who could do this research (Templeton, evoinfo.org) but they are not. How do you explain it. Also please provide evidence for your claim that "they" look more and more ridiculous. That's news to me. What I see is paper after paper each chipping away at the unknown, as best as you can with such things that happened in deep time. What I see from the ID side is a moribund research program (e.g. http://www.iscid.org/ ) doing nothing.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 22, 2010 6:21:32 PM PDT
Arthur, please explain to me when hurricanes have ever been used to light entire cities (if only we could capture all that energy). And therein lies the difference. There is a huge difference between a self-ordering system (hurricane, whirlpool, falling raindrop, candle flame), and formal organization. There is, of course, no doubt that energy naturally flows through systems, and very complex self-ordering phenomena can be observed. But order does not equal organization. Mechanical engineers earn their living designing organized systems to capture some of that energy flow to perform useful work. In this way, there is a big difference between hurricanes and an electric generator. In the former, the energy simply flows through a system. In the latter, the energy is harnessed. Just like in photosynthesis or ATP synthesis.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 22, 2010 6:24:58 PM PDT
Joaozinho says:
M,

Where are these statistics you were talking about? Are they imaginary?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 22, 2010 6:53:00 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Oct 22, 2010 8:06:13 PM PDT
Arthur Hunt says:
"There is a huge difference between a self-ordering system (hurricane, whirlpool, falling raindrop, candle flame), and formal organization. "

Actually if we use the ID metric, there is in fact no difference.

According to ID proponents, the fact that scientists use engineering terms to describe biological phenomena is proof that these phenomena are in fact feats of engineering. By this metric, the fact that scientists call hurricanes heat engines - not "like heat engines", but explicitly heat engines - means that hurricanes are every bit the engineering marvels that, say, flagella are.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2010 4:11:15 AM PDT
OM says:
M,
" I have posited that the force at which backward steps start to occur exceeds the design parameters of the kinesin."

posit -verb (used with object)
1.
to place, put, or set.
2.
to lay down or assume as a fact or principle; postulate.
-noun
3.
something that is posited; an assumption; postulate.

Once you've done assuming, M, perhaps you can get to proving.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2010 4:12:37 AM PDT
OM says:
M,
I guess you missed this. In a attempt to get the post through your internal filter I repost.

M
I asked: - - - "and explain why it could not have evolved."

You said: "Statistics"

Please provide a citation to where that is shown to be the case. Or do you believe it even though you don't have any such evidence? Simply saying "Statistics" is so transparently ludicrous that I'm surprised you have the nerve to write it. Don't you feel silly believing all these things without any actual evidence? If you have the evidence, please provide a citation. If you don't, then why do you believe it?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2010 9:16:26 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 23, 2010 9:17:36 AM PDT
I said:

"There is a huge difference between a self-ordering system (hurricane, whirlpool, falling raindrop, candle flame), and formal organization." [formal organization as in an electric generator]

Arthur, you say:

- - - "According to ID proponents, the fact that scientists use engineering terms to describe biological phenomena is proof that these phenomena are in fact feats of engineering."

So far, so good. But then you said this:

- - - "By this metric, the fact that scientists call hurricanes heat engines - not "like heat engines", but explicitly heat engines - means that hurricanes are every bit the engineering marvels that, say, flagella are."

A hurricane is indeed a heat engine, and we see this type of phenomena everywhere. Whenever there is an energy flow through a system, there will likely be self-ordering phenomena which can be described by natural law. Warm oceans, evaporation, condensation, the rotation of the Earth, all contribute to the self-ordering that results from this energy flow. Hurricanes even perform work by generating huge waves, uprooting trees, knocking down structures, etc. In this way, a hurricane is a heat engine; the heat energy is transformed into mechanical energy. But to call it an engineering marvel is very much inaccurate.

An electric generator is also an engine. There is an energy flow through this system, and that energy is transformed into electric potential, which is transformed into mechanical work. But please note that this is USEFUL work. Also, please note that a hurricane spontaneously organizes into a highly ordered structure as a result of natural laws. This process is predictable (in principle, anyway), and we can calculate when they will occur, the direction they will go, how much rain they will dump, etc. But the organization in an electric motor IS NOT A RESULT OF NATURAL LAW. Its existence is contingent upon decisions carried out by teleological agents.

As an example of this, please describe to me what natural law would cause the purification of copper, then draw it out into an extended length at a precise diameter, and get coated with a specific thickness of resin. Also, please explain what self ordering phenomenon would cause this purified length of copper to coil around a shaft in precise orientations to the axis of the shaft, and at a specific number of coils. We would also need some natural law that would cause the formation, orientation and assembly of the electrodes, magnets, housing, mounting holes, etc. Please note that these reconfigurations of matter can only come about by the willful actions of an agent. It's like a configurable switch setting. The reason an array of configurable switches is so useful is precisely because natural law cannot affect their settings. They can only be determined by a willful agent, not by natural law. And if they were affected by natural law, their usefulness as configurable switches would be compromised.

So to call hurricanes, water drops and candle flames engineering marvels is egregiously inaccurate. But for electric generators on the other hand, it would be very accurate. And given this principle, what should we make of the molecular machines we find in cells?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2010 9:51:54 AM PDT
OM says:
M,
"As an example of this, please describe to me what natural law would cause the purification of copper, then draw it out into an extended length at a precise diameter, and get coated with a specific thickness of resin."

The problem you and all other IDers have is "specific". You look at something and think that's the only way it could be. Tell me, what is the one "specific" diameter of wire that you are talking about? 1mm? 2mm? 3mm? It can be any size. Likewise, enzymes can promote many reactions, some more then others. A "specific" one only seems to be needed because that's what you see now. There may be a better one available, as discussed (but not by you because you are an intellectual coward) on this very thread.

I guess you'd also say that it was impossible for a nuclear reactor to occur without being specifically designed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_reactor

You'd be wrong.

And anyway, so what if nature cannot draw out copper into an extended length at a precise diameter, and then coat it with a specific thickness of resin. What does that have to do with proving ID? I can point to any number of things that humans have designed and note that they are impossible for nature to create but so what? I can do something that nature cannot, therefore ID?

" Please note that these reconfigurations of matter can only come about by the willful actions of an agent. "

Sure, in that example, but we're not talking about electrical generators are we? We're talking about biology, which is somewhat more messy.

"And given this principle, what should we make of the molecular machines we find in cells?"

These "molecular machines" don't actually look like the nice clean blueprints you see when you look at generators etc.

For example, when you look at this image people like you think "it was designed".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flagellum_base_diagram_en.svg

but when you look at this image

http://www.palaeos.com/Eukarya/Lists/EuGlossary/Images/FlagellumCrossSection.gif

it does not look quite so "designed" does it?

You can easily prove the point you are making without recourse to these silly analogies. All you have to do is support *your* specific claim that "statistics" precludes evolution. Or be thought of as a liar. Your choice.

" But the organization in an electric motor IS NOT A RESULT OF NATURAL LAW."

Nobody is disputing that. But the organisation of a flagellum is such a result.

Let me ask once again. In a attempt to get the post through your internal filter I repost once more.

M
I asked: - - - "and explain why it could not have evolved."

You said: "Statistics"

Please provide a citation to where that is shown to be the case. Or do you believe it even though you don't have any such evidence? Simply saying "Statistics" is so transparently ludicrous that I'm surprised you have the nerve to write it. Don't you feel silly believing all these things without any actual evidence? If you have the evidence, please provide a citation. If you don't, then why do you believe it?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2010 9:52:11 AM PDT
OM says:
M,
I guess you missed this. In a attempt to get the post through your internal filter I repost.

M
I asked: - - - "and explain why it could not have evolved."

You said: "Statistics"

Please provide a citation to where that is shown to be the case. Or do you believe it even though you don't have any such evidence? Simply saying "Statistics" is so transparently ludicrous that I'm surprised you have the nerve to write it. Don't you feel silly believing all these things without any actual evidence? If you have the evidence, please provide a citation. If you don't, then why do you believe it?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2010 9:59:06 AM PDT
OM says:
M,
Please explain to me which natural law precludes evolution? You seem to believe there is such, please provide details.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2010 7:54:18 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 23, 2010 7:55:27 PM PDT
ATP synthase is most like a turbine, powered by protons. The bacterial flagellum is most like a rotor. Of course, in your lingo, these metaphors translate to "is". I should have known better than to ask someone who sees machines in every corner.

I was asking about wheels which are like the wheels on a wheelbarrow, or a car. But you have weaseled well, and will continue to do so, I predict.

"ANd are you saying that elephants and chipmunks should have wheels?"

No. You are, if one takes your argument at face value. Are you capable of reading? I was taking your machine-mad designer argument and riffing on it. Humans invented wheels long ago for moving large loads. Your designer seems to be a tad slower on the uptake than us humans...

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2010 1:26:12 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 24, 2010 3:45:12 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2010 3:48:18 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 24, 2010 3:50:07 AM PDT
OM says:
Richard,
"You need to brush up a little on Dembski's filter, perhaps. It will serve as an initial tutorial for your computing the odds for and against evolutionary developments occurring in 'specific' cases."

Please provide a link or citation to a single example usage of "Dembski's Filter". I.E. The Explanatory Filter. Please do so, it would be greatly appreciated by many many people as for many many years it's been claimed that it can be used to detect design, most recently in this very thread by Joseph. When I asked him for the details of his claimed usage of the filter he went mysteriously silent.

No doubt you will also go silent now that you have been asked to support your claim. The same way that all ID supporters go silent when asked to provide supporting evidence for their claim that the EF can be used to detect design. They go silent or come up with any reason not to provide such an example. What will you do?

"Prove it without using a circular argument!"

Which type of flagellum specifically?

"Straight to the heart of the matter solutions were never an option for you, huh? "

Please provide an example usage of the EF and show your working. This would cut through all the waffle, claims on both sides and simply show that a tool exists that can be used to detect design. ID is all about detecting design, or so it's claimed. A simple demonstration of such would shut me up, but in the past half decade or so for some reason nobody has managed to actually use the primary tool of ID, the EF.

" that's one more example of your need to grow up in intellectual sophistication. "

Intellectual sophistication requires that claims are supported. Please support your claim that the EF is a tool that can be used to detect design, i.e. by linking to, showing, doing, creating an example of such a use. Support your claim or admit that it is simply a smokescreen and withdraw it.

It's a simple thing. You claim that the EF works, please support your claim or withdraw. If you believe that the EF works, but cannot provide an example of such then why make the claim? Why continue to believe it?

I guess it's because like so many other things in your life, you believe them because you believe them regardless of any evidence. When asked for the evidence you don't provide it, instead accuse the person asking of all sorts of things. I believe a certain person you probably hold in high regard had something to say about that. That person also had something to say about lying, even if it's only lying to yourself it's still a lie. And unless you provide the evidence or retract your claim that "Dembski's filter" can be applied and useful results generated then who is the dogmatist here?

"You're required to rise above the children's leagues if you want to be taken seriously."

To be taken seriously, all ID has to do is to show that it can detect design. A good way of going about that would be to input a selection of objects, some designed some not, into the EF and show that the EF can indeed detect design. To be honest, that would shut me right up. Why are you so opposed to shutting me up and making me look foolish?

In case you need to brush up on your reading here are some links:
http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_explfilter.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Design_Inference
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1203
http://creationwiki.org/Dembski's_filter_can_detect_design_(Talk.Origins)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity

Please do what you claim can be done and use the EF to detect design. Or admit that it cannot, your choice. I'll leave it to you.

"My kids have some really good Tom & Jerry video footage that is also highly self-explanatory without audio, but I don't cite it here. You would."

And when you are done making whatever excuse you will make as to why you cannot provide, create or link to an example usage of the EF detecting design that comment will look especially foolish.

Good luck!

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2010 4:21:42 AM PDT
OM,

You admit Meyer's paper published through the Smithsonian was done in a peer-viewed journal, but maintain it was done illegitimately. Then your group's succinctly stated rating criteria were foolish, naively stated, insufficiently specified, not well planned out, naive, and shortsighted. It's your own fault; anything you set up for comparison purposes between ID and evolution will become another lie with time, too. They're only taunts.

The original criteria of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal after peer-review were met as a matter of indisputable fact; the editor has two Ph.D.s. Your issue is sour grapes and a child's sob story. That's it. Evolutionists are a bunch of griping kids. Ad hoc legitimacy considerations were never a part of the rating scheme until afterwards the criteria were met. The story's being written by evolutionists after-the-fact, which makes evolutionists out to be bold-faced liars, proving they move their unsettled goalposts and that their reports/words cannot be trusted in the least. Scientific merit is the new goalpost, which is completely non-quantifiable and completely subjective. It only exposes the bold-faced lie and hypocrisy to full public view.

I said: " It's also a classic dissuasion technique used to avoid making direct rebuttals! "

You said: "As the master of that technique I bow to you. Not only have you edited your comments after posting and after I replied, changing the entire substance of the comment..."

Prove your accusation, "changing the entire substance of the comment" and do so with dates and times that show you weren't typing deliberately "on top" of my continuous posting online, i.e., while I was still posting and proofreading at one sitting. Besides, the process of editing and reposting comments you accuse me of has nothing to do with the deliberate distraction I demonstrated you made from the point I supplied, the fact that there is no call for ID papers from evolution journals and symposiums. It's a cheap shot, again without support, made only to distract. Can't you get any better? Can't you even improve with time?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2010 5:10:57 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 24, 2010 6:30:08 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2010 5:57:31 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 24, 2010 6:35:20 AM PDT
OM says:
Richard,
"You admit Meyer's paper published through the Smithsonian was done in a peer-viewed journal, but maintain it was done illegitimately. "

I don't maintain that. The The Biological Society of Washington do. They issued this statement:

"Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history. For the same reason, the journal will not publish a rebuttal to the thesis of the paper, the superiority of intelligent design (ID) over evolution as an explanation of the emergence of Cambrian body-plan diversity. The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings."

Simple facts, beyond dispute. The paper was published without review by any associate editor. Why?

"the fact that there is no call for ID papers from evolution journals and symposiums."

So, the failure of ID to support their argument is down to the evilutionists because they have not put out "a call for ID papers"? Laughable.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2010 6:05:43 AM PDT
OM says:
Richard said "Look at the dates on the EF. How many years will you give us and Demski to apply his EF into a full-blown peer-reviewed article published in a scientific journal people of your ilk won't permit?"

The original paper was presented in 1996 ( http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_explfilter.htm ) . Tell me Richard, how many decades do you need exactly?

And I did not realise you were a conspiracy theorist. What else could explain the world-wide lack of such a paper in any journal? There must be sleeper agents at every journal spiking those papers demonstrating the EF, thousands of them worldwide operating in a coordinated matter suppressing the details of the EF and it's successful application.

Or perhaps there is a simpler explanation.

"I will get you references on Dembski's EF, which you already have, liar!"

I have references. I've probably read more on the EF then you have. I expect that I have in fact as if you had also read as much as me you'd realise that it's not possible to use. What I want is what you claim is possible, that the EF can actually be used to determine design. Please take a selection of designed (organic) constructs and non designed constructs (whatever you like, organic or otherwise) and demonstrate that the EF can filter design from non-design. That's all. Just support your claim.

" Just like Meyer did with the Smithsonian article! The trouble is: Evolutionists can never see their own or each others' lies."

Please demonstrate the EF, as you claim that it can be used.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2010 6:12:51 AM PDT
"Look at the dates on the EF. How many years will you give us and Demski to apply his EF into a full-blown peer-reviewed article published in a scientific journal people of your ilk won't permit?" - R. Kepler

There is no such article, and the EF was proposed in the mid 1990's. That's a horrendously long time in the world of science. For example, after Pons and Fleischman proposed cold fusion, there was a flurry of papers on that topic almost immediately. Not true for the equally bogus EF. In 1982 Stan Prusiner published his first paper on the revolutionary concept that proteins can be infectious agents. In 1997 he got the Nobel Prize for this valid discovery.

There's no science in the EF, and I predict you will never see a paper that uses that notion. Dembski will not publish pro-ID papers in the real scientific literature (because, as we have discovered here, there are no real testable hypotheses that come out of ID notions), but acolytes like Sternberg and Meyer might get the occasional anti-evolution publication snuck in the back door. And all of them will continue to hit the lecture circuit and publish books, like the snake-oil salesmen of old.

Sad.

Posted on Oct 24, 2010 6:22:55 AM PDT
OM says:
Claims that the EF can be used to detect design: Many
Examples of the EF being used to detect design: Zero.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2010 6:58:30 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 24, 2010 7:37:31 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2010 8:15:10 AM PDT
OM says:
Richard
"You are not answering my points and questions to about 90% of the total currently. I do not think you deserve my response at all to your inquiries."

How convenient. I guess if I had answered 90% of your questions you'd be forthcoming with a worked example of the EF in action.

"I have heard of the statistical probabilities and improbability of evolutionary developments since the 1970s, from mathematicians primarily."

In fact this can be tracked back to 1802. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

The watchmaker analogy consists of the comparison of some natural phenomenon to a watch. Typically, the analogy is presented as a prelude to the teleological argument and is generally presented as:
The complex inner workings of a watch necessitate an intelligent designer.
As with a watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the entire universe) necessitates a designer.

Don't you find it odd that it's always mathematicians why think they've disproven evolution? Any actual biologists doing such? Ever wonder why not?

". The probabilities have always been rated incredibly high; I think, and mathematically speaking, the figures I have seen were unreasonably high and against evolution."

Odd how you have seen the figures but are unable to provide a citation. I wonder why...

"Find me a mathematican that has published an example in a peer-reviewed journal different from or contrary to the EF or its antecedants"

There are no examples contrary to the EF as the EF has no examples that can be examined. And that's not the way it works, you make a claim, you support it.

" if you want the name and/ or an example of what you are talking about from the earliest proponent of this type of probabilitic argument from a mathematician I can find."

?

" If you don't want conclusive pre-Dembski examples and proofs in a case, then I have no use or respect for your narrow-minded limits and stigmas, or for your stacked pronouncements against EF, for that matter either. "

All you have to do to disprove my claims regarding the usefulness (or not) of the EF is to provide an example of it in use and of it detecting design.

"If you don't want the specialized information that does exist and that I'm currently aware of, that's fine with me. You certainly haven't earned it by your responses."

Once again, the inability of ID supporters to prove their case is not their fault at all! It's the fault of others refusing to abide by their rules. I guess that explains why no examples of the EF in action have been provided in the 14+ years it's been around.

"The EF is your concern, or even perhaps a prime obsession of yours, not mine"

I guess that's the closest you are going to get to admitting you cannot provide a worked example.

"The matter is just not much of a working, detailed interest to me currently. "

Luck for you.

". However, is the EF that important to you or are you broad-minded and honest enough to generalize your search parameters? "

So now I'm narrow minded and dishonest because I'm asking ID supporters to either admit the EF is useless or withdraw their claims regarding? Nice...

"Or, are you just making a show of 'hallowed-out' points about the EF, or on a fishing expedition?"

It's a simple point. Demonstrate the EF or admit it's useless.

" Generating statistical probabilities for the likelihood of correlated observed events or outcomes is a good way to proceed in this."

Which is part of the usage of the EF. So please demonstrate it in action.

"Show me an evolutionist who has tried to validate evolution by doing this, or has published findings invalidating EF as a result, i.e., if you are serious about this issue."

Nobody has published anything invalidating an example of the EF in action because there is nothing to invalidate. There are many resources available that criticize it as a general concept, but as it's never been demonstrated how can it be invalidated?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2010 12:34:55 PM PDT
OM, you say: "Please explain to me which natural law precludes evolution? You seem to believe there is such, please provide details."

No, I said the opposite. I said there is not a natural law that can account for the organization we find in biological machines and cybernetic systems, not that there was a law that prevented their self-organization. So while you are waiting for such a law to be discovered (don't hold your breath), I will continue (quite reasonably) to conclude that life was designed.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  68
Total posts:  3137
Initial post:  Jun 24, 2009
Latest post:  Sep 4, 2011

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 11 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design
Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer (Hardcover - June 23, 2009)
4.4 out of 5 stars   (468)