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 176-200 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 12:47:41 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 24, 2011 12:48:13 PM PDT
Seeker says:
[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 24, 2011 12:52:03 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 24, 2011 12:55:51 PM PDT
MrBabakS says:
When C++ introduces creating and compiling code at runtime or interoperating with another language other than C, then you can talk about C++ as a mature language. Just because you have to waste time chasing down memory leaks or buffer overflows or because you have to recompile every cpp file's .h file and template doesn't make for a better language.
Your criticism of my argument is a straw man fallacy.
I used the example of the success of intelligence in engineering a complex system, and the failure of intelligence causing a failure to engineer a complex system to evince that engineering a complex system must require intelligence, pretty much the opposite of what you claimed my argument was.
Go back to your punch cards and vacuum tubes.

Posted on Mar 24, 2011 1:02:51 PM PDT
MrBabakS says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Mar 24, 2011 1:05:15 PM PDT
The fatal flaw in BAM's argument is the assumption that theory of evolution through natural selection, as Darwin described it, has something to do with the creation of DNA. Evolution through natural selection deals with the change of living organisms through time, and as such, it assumes the living organism already existed.

Yes, the creation of DNA and its precursors are important to the origin of life question, and I agree with BAM that this is an unresolved problem. It is currently unclear how the first "protocell" and how the precursors of DNA came about. It could have been through intelligent design, or it could have originated from some random chance meeting of proteins. There are several competing theories, none of which falsifies the theory of evolution through natural selection.

Now, if BAM would like disprove (or argue) the theory of evolution through natural selection, he might want to start with proving how some species either did not change or go extinct even when subjected to external natural pressures, or proving that some part of an animal that could not have evolved, or disproving some other aspect which the theory of evolution attempts to explain.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 1:18:35 PM PDT
Brent:

<<You are saying that code and intelligence are inseparable based on all of our observations. Correct. So which came first: intelligence or an super-sophisticated code?>>

Don't you see a problem here, Brent? You seem to agree with me that neither one exists without the other -- but then you suggest that one came "first". But for one of them to have come first, it would have to exist apart from the other. We have never seen intelligence exist prior to any code. You seem to concede this. But then you turn right around and argue that intelligence must precede any code! One of us is missing something here.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 1:50:59 PM PDT
A. Caplan says:
Brian Poe says: @ Brent A. Mortimer- please shut up. Just because you study science (radiation in your case apparently), it doesn't make you qualified to discount the factual evidence in support of evolution. How much cell biology and population genetics have you studied?
>What BAM does not realize is that, by rejecting the scientific methodology used for evolution, he rejects all science. You cannot say that the same methodology works in some science but not at all in other science. His rejection is not based on science, because he has never presented any evidence against evolution, but on non-scientific belief. So, he must reject any science that has produced any theories involving radiation, not just that pertaining to evolution.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 1:54:28 PM PDT
Seeker says:
exactly..........and well said...............

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 1:57:21 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 24, 2011 2:06:56 PM PDT
Fargone: Aren't you the one that claimed to have been an advisor to the White House.............maybe I was wrong, it happens. But I don't think so.................

No, I never have been an advisor to the White House. I also have no desire to participate in politics, so you are right in that you are wrong.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 1:58:40 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 24, 2011 2:05:52 PM PDT
...

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 1:59:50 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 24, 2011 2:05:36 PM PDT
...

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 2:08:52 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 24, 2011 2:09:25 PM PDT
That's a salient point as well.

Edit: Uh, it was, before it became an ellipsis.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 2:18:54 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 24, 2011 2:20:10 PM PDT
Seeker says:
Well, I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.............

just a weak attempt at humor.........I get so bored on these threads......

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 2:42:16 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 24, 2011 3:00:13 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 24, 2011 3:52:57 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 24, 2011 3:59:35 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 24, 2011 5:12:03 PM PDT
That a system works is not evidence that it was designed by an intelligence.

Because it does not take into account the failures.

When environmental factors 'punish' a less-suitable life form, by killing it, or reducing its numbers to below that needed for a breeding population (in cases of sexual reproduction) in time either the variety becomes extinct; or another random variation may allow it to survive.

Until the next environmental challenge, at any rate..

The latter -- survival -- of course is very rare.

If "Intelligent design" gives rise to speciation, why is it so dammed dumb? Shouldn't it act intelligently?

The vast majority -- by far the prepnderence -- of species that have ever lived have become extinct.

I think we should fire that engineer, don't you?

"Intelligent design" ?

I don't think so. The vast majority of the prototypes failed.

The system is aimless, cruel and hideously wasteful of materials and energy.

Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure.

Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.

It's almost as if that stupid engineer just made random changes, and then sat back to see what happened.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 4:11:17 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 24, 2011 4:22:06 PM PDT
It's curious that you have me on ignore, but (sometimes) respond to me.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 4:23:03 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 9, 2011 9:52:35 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 4:55:22 PM PDT
Irish Lace says:
"Further if complex systems need a designer, and as we see designers are very complex, then who designed that designer? "

Waaaaait for it....

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 4:57:01 PM PDT
Irish Lace says:
Pssst, Bent, it always saddens me to say this, but Stephen is dead.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 4:59:42 PM PDT
Irish Lace says:
"Just out of curiosity, do you also have a list of those you have found it worth talking to?

Whoa! Cool question!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 5:03:23 PM PDT
Irish Lace says:
":And not everyone who believes in intelligent design is a Christian. There are......"

Yes, dear, and they "believe in" it for the same reason the Christians do... not a shred of empirical evidence.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 5:09:48 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 24, 2011 5:23:30 PM PDT
Good point. They can't cherry pick among the facts of science the way they do in their REAL field, which is a particular sect of Christianity.
------------
In religious dogma, there is no evidence for the truth or falsehood of any statement. The religious dogmatist simply 'believes' what his parents taught him, or his culture including its schools, or, less commonly, he is converted into an alien 'faith'.

He is converted not by 'evidence', but by some sort of emotional appeal: promises of eternal life which assuage his fear of death; promises of an eternal state of bliss; promises that he will be reunited with loved ones; and even in some cases promises of earthly benefits: wealth and power.

But he is not provided with evidence that these promises are reliable.

This is not a paradigm that can be carried over to science.
--------------
And the paradigms of science cannot be applied to religious dogma.

Because the 'authority ' for dogmatic religious statements lies in remote cultural events and statements that cannot be verified in any way.

The nature of religion itself is evidence of that. The various 'faiths' cannot even convice EACH OTHER of their 'Truths'.

This is evidence that their assumptions are not supportable in reason.

Resolving issues of religious dogma come down, quite often, as history has shown, to a savage matter of war, torture, imprisonment, thought control, censorship -- in short , terrorism.

And religion struck the first blows in the war of the 'Methods': by trying to assert the 'Truth' of divine revelation over the rules of evidence and the machinery of logic.

Men were imprisoned and tortured and sometimes killed publicly and horribly because they believed the evidence of their own eyes and of reason ahead of the bookish dogmas.

No wonder it is, then, that scientific thinking, which relies on physical evidence and methodic protocols, is vigilant in protection of its method.

To try to impose upon the discipline of science the methodology of religion, which is divine inspiration, and then impose it by terrorist methods, is something which any scientific thinker worthy of the name would oppose at almost any cost.

So to teach, in a science class, that the universe was created in six days, or that men are intrinsically superior to women, or one race of humans is intrinsically superior to all other races -- unless the god changes his mind, and then becomes non-racist;

Or to teach, in a science class, that the history in the rocks, indicating the great age of the earth; and the duration of speciation in that larger timeframe, is just a 'trick' on the part of the hypothetical 'creator' to test the faith of the students in the 6-day account of Genesis --

is so absurd that I can't believe this is a real issue in our culture.

But I must believe it. The evidence is before me. The anti-science crew really do want us to revert to the failed methods of the past.
---------
The reason for the passionate commitment of science to the protection of its methods and standards for evidence should be obvious.

The drive behind the theists to 'stick up for ' their god, because they believe it is their duty to champion the cause of religion is also obvious.

They believe they will be richly rewarded by the invisible forces which rule the universe if they 'stick up' for those immensely powerful imaginary forces. This mighty being needs champions. He cannot do it on his own.

The science folks have much more modest motives. They just want to understand the way things work. Based on physical evidence. Not based on divine inspiration.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 5:09:53 PM PDT
Irish Lace says:
"It's curious that you have me on ignore, but (sometimes) respond to me."

He "peaks." He has freely admitted that. I personally think he doesn't really have anyone on ignore. It just gives him a convenient excuse to selectively ignore that which he can't answer.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 5:13:53 PM PDT
From BAM: "Forethought is a hallmark of design. DNA has intelligence written all over it. One has to try very hard to miss these characteristics of DNA and not conclude that there is a coder behind the code."

On February 27th, 2010, there was a large earthquake in Chile measuring magnitude 8.8. On March 11th, 2010, there were large aftershocks just as Chile's new president was being sworn in. On March 11th, 2011, there was a large earthquake in Japan.

One has to try very hard to miss the timing of these events and not conclude that there is someone that doesn't like Chile's President.

Ascribing intent to natural processes is often wrong. Just because you think DNA exhibits some elements that you think make up a "code" does not necessarily imply that there was a coder. An example from astronomy: when first discovered, pulsars were initially thought to be proof of intelligence, what else could send signals so regularly? However, later we realized that it was just fast rotating neutron stars emitting beams of radiation.

So please be more careful in your classification of DNA as code, and the assumption that codes are made by coders. Humans are very good at ascribing meaning to patterns where there is none.
Discussion locked

 

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 9 customers

Search Customer Discussions