Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer showtimemulti showtimemulti showtimemulti  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis Water Sports
Customer Discussions > Science forum

Why are Darwinists here so scientifically illiterate?

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 101-125 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 20, 2011 8:24:32 AM PDT
SciGuy says:
It's time, BAM, CD, Largo, to tell of us the experiments that you can do to demonstrate ID.

You made the statement and have yet to inform the rest of us of the nature of your experiments.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 20, 2011 8:53:26 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 20, 2011 2:47:10 PM PDT
They won't. They haven't the cojones. They make an irresponsible statement, then run like rabbits.

Edited: Still no response.

I know! I'll bet they're e-mailing and phoning the people they know at Discovery Institute asking for a definition of "experiment" before they reply !

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 20, 2011 2:14:55 PM PDT
Irish Lace says:
Cricket. Cricket.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 20, 2011 2:56:56 PM PDT
What does "cricket cricket" mean? Nothing to do with the game, i trust.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 20, 2011 4:13:00 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 20, 2011 10:55:43 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Mar 20, 2011 4:38:25 PM PDT
krad1964 says:
BAM: "core function"

The base once had a core function of supporting a tree. It's next core function is to shim up an unbalanced table. Finally, its last core function will be as kindling for a fire.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 20, 2011 5:56:49 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 9, 2011 9:52:06 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 20, 2011 6:06:57 PM PDT
bsmith says:
A scientist would conclude that if the conditions from San Diego to Boston were the same as the same as those in the room, but they're not. There would be all sorts of obstacles encountered in the route from San Diego to Boston that would not be encountered in the room. The confirmation of "evolutionary change on a small scale in a short time" should not lead any scientist to conclude, for example, that humans evolved from single-celled organisms. There would be huge obstacles that would be encountered in such large-scale evolutionary change that would not be encountered in a small-scale change such as a certain strain of bacteria's developing resistance to penicillin.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 20, 2011 7:25:09 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 20, 2011 7:31:59 PM PDT
Irish Lace says:
Sorry, DT. "Cricket, cricket" means - in this case - old BAM has no answer so it's so quiet you can hear the crickets.

Edit: I see he's trotted out mouse traps and flagellum.

'Nuff said.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 20, 2011 10:17:46 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 21, 2011 9:08:29 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 Mar 20, 2011 10:45:58 PM 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 Mar 21, 2011 5:41:45 PM 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 Mar 21, 2011 5:49:06 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 21, 2011 5:58:33 PM PDT
C.D. says "But you can't find the research papers in a science journal you say??? That's another though one. Journals have banned any reference to ID because only evolution is allowed (darwinism on display."

Well, what would you expect? The science journals also don't accept papers based on Lamarckism, either.

Both theories, Genesis and Lamarckism are obsolete. By that is meant that the six-day creation myth is utterly busted.

Genesis is a cinch to bust. There were sometimes long periods of time between the emergence of one species, branching off from another. The 'one day' time allocation there eliminates it. The truth is in the rocks.

Lamarckism - that species passed on changes ACQUIRED DURING THE INDIVIDUAL'S LIFETIME -- just never measured up :-) because of lack of sufficient physical evidence to support it..

The clear winner: EVOLUTION THEORY !!!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 21, 2011 6:00:16 PM PDT
SciGuy says:
Yes, Brent, the crickets are chirping.

Completely
Rational
Individuals
Choosing
Knowledge
and
Education
Through
Science

And those crickets will just keep on chirping!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 21, 2011 6:49:43 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 21, 2011 6:53:17 PM PDT
y
l
s
g
e
d
n
h
e

The mystically-oriented will be looking for the secret coded message in the last letters, too!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 21, 2011 7:26:40 PM PDT
Often called "evolution", Darwinism explains a wide variety of phenomena concerning self-reproducing organisms (and self-coding organisms such are viruses) as being driven by mutation plus natural selection.

"Special" evolution is the observed adaptation of existing organisms via natural selection (for example, ivory poaching results in most elephants being tuskless). In addition, we can directly observe the interaction of some recent mutations with natural selection such as sickle cell anaemia with malaria. Special evolution is not in question. (Except by those who confuse special and general evolution.)

"General" evolution is the theory that new species are introduced by the action of mutations and natural selection over long periods of time. Intelligent design arguments against general evolution center around "irreducible complexity" as popularly described by Michael Behe. According to Behe, evolution explores a landscape of possible organisms, but irreducibly complex cellular machinery presents wide "chasms" which mutations cannot leap across in the time scales available. He concludes that the first cell was a "super cell" created by a designer, with code for all the irreducibly complex features found today. Evolution is then a matter of adaptation to specific environments over long periods time, and discarding unneeded genetic material. In contrast, classic Darwinism posits a "simplest possible" first cell, which evolves new genetic material. The "chasms" of "irreducibly complex" machinery are assumed to be crossable via hidden pathways that we are not yet aware of.

William Dembski argues against general evolution by describing "complex specified information", and proving that mutation plus natural selection can only decrease CSI or leave it the same. The primary weakness of this argument is that the choice of pattern for the "specified" part of CSI is arbitrary in the context of evolution, and by making the (trivial but perfectly valid mathematically) "anthropic" choice, a materialist renders it meaningless.

Origin of Life theories are often lumped together with evolution and Darwinism. However, Meyers points out that Darwinism cannot operate until you have something that is self reproducing. Hence Darwinism is an explanation that cannot apply to origin of life questions. The self reproduction must involve a coding system so that arbitrary changes can be effected by mutations - self catalysing molecules are not capable of evolution. The most popular Materialist theory for origin of life today is that the first "organism" was a self-reproducing RNA molecule. This meets the requirements for evolution to begin. That leaves the task of finding such a self-reproducing RNA molecule (in a plausible environment) that is simple enough to have occurred by chance (or even be particularly likely in the plausible environment).

Now, even if Intelligent Design is true, attempting to find such a precursor to evolution is real science - just as much as searching for the Higgs Boson. If they find one, but it is too complex to have reasonably occurred by chance, that still is an objective data point for estimating the complexity of the origin of life. Behe's contribution is real science - the "chasms" are real, and put constraints on how evolution works, even if we ultimately find the hidden pathways. Dembski's contribution is real science. While it fails to disprove general evolution, it does constrain how evolution must operate. Meyer's contribution is real science - even if just for clarifying that origin of life questions are pre-evolution.

What is not real science is claims that Darwinists are evil deceivers that lie about their findings. What is not real science is dismissing any departure from current orthodoxy as the ravings of irrational religionists.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 21, 2011 7:43:30 PM PDT
Verdandi says:
B.A.M. was so excited by all this he almost had an organism right then and there!

....I didn't have an organism but I ~did~ have a fit of hysterics. T'was excellent!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 21, 2011 7:56:19 PM PDT
Verdandi says:
D. Thrower wrote: "For, lo! I have prepared a place for it: http://www.amazon.com/tag/philosophy/forum/ref=cm_cd_tfp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1BEW5SYFX6OUZ&cdThread=Tx3O4AHJY2OZW68&displayType=tagsDetail"

*_* ~Surely Thou art a God hiding Thyself!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 21, 2011 9:39:13 PM PDT
Don't call me Shirley.
(I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry)

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 22, 2011 2:50:02 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 22, 2011 3:29:29 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 Mar 22, 2011 3:26:14 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 Mar 22, 2011 5:47:53 AM PDT
A customer says:
Brent - "Correct. Failure to recognize evil and failure to oppose it is why fighting crime in America is a multi-trillion dollar business"

You should come to Europe, then, where it's much cheaper. Less crime, see? Less creationism too, now I come to think of it...

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 22, 2011 6:26:21 AM PDT
Irish Lace says:
This ground has been plowed so many times, by so many who are so much better at it than I. I understand that you are one of the deniers and that's really OK just so long as you don't buttonhole me at parties. I'm definitely not having this tired old argument with you. Stay safe.

Here you are, Brent.
http://www.google.com/custom?q=irreducible+complexity&sa=Search&sitesearch=www.talkorigins.org

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 22, 2011 6:29:09 AM PDT
Irish Lace says:
Chuckling.

Posted on Mar 22, 2011 10:39:24 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 22, 2011 11:41:15 AM PDT
SinSeeker says:
BAM says:
"Evolution model: matter + energy + time = codes
ID model: matter + energy + time + intelligence = codes"

If both models lead to "codes," isn't intelligence superfluous? Wouldn't the more parsimonious model be best?
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the Science forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  303
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Mar 13, 2011
Latest post:  Nov 10, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 8 customers

Search Customer Discussions