Your Garage Best Books of the Month Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Subscribe & Save Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer roadies roadies roadies  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Best Camping & Hiking Gear in Outdoors STEM
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 51-75 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 16, 2011 6:07:54 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 16, 2011 6:17:23 PM PDT
N. Paterson says:
What a load of Rubbish. Evolution is accepted by all reputable scientists. There IS no controversy.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 16, 2011 6:20:10 PM PDT
SinSeeker says:
Sigh....

BAM says: "I have noticed that in my discussions with Darwinists, they will usually get around to bringing God into the discussion, and then accuse me of basing my ideas around a supernatural assumption, when I have made none."

OK, if it's not a supernatural assumption, is it a natural assumption? That is, is it some sort of physical being such as a super-intelligent alien?

If some sort of super-intelligent alien, did these aliens evolve or were they intelligently designed?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 16, 2011 6:34:37 PM PDT
SinSeeker's post: "OK, if it's not a supernatural assumption, is it a natural assumption?"

The premise is: design is detectable. Period. Is intelligence supernatural? If the designer of the universe (and all of life in it) designed the natural laws, and intelligence is a product of those natural laws, then intelligence is natural. There may be an entity that exists outside of the constraints of our universe, this entity may not need to be created, or evolved or designed. I don't have all of the answers, but I think that NOT being convinced that "everything evolved" (no questions asked) is a better place to be as far as scientific investigation goes.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 16, 2011 7:22:26 PM PDT
<< There you have it. Now that wasn't that hard was it? Wherever there is code there is intelligence behind the code. >>

Brent, you missed the point of my post. You asked what we have observed, and I pointed out that your "ID model" had not, in fact, been observed, even though you are under the impression it has. Why hasn't it been observed? Because it posits that intelligence precedes code -- something we have never observed.

This is perhaps the most central, most glaring problem with intellligent design -- "intelligence" is undefined, even ignored! It is simply a code word that will be understood by cartesian dualists (such as people of Abrahamic religions) to imply a nonmaterial agent ... God. As a pseudo-scientific paradigm, "Godly design" sounds much less legitimate, but it's what the phrase "intelligent design" translates into.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 16, 2011 8:41:28 PM PDT
Irish Lace says:
"Only because you are wrong and you are wasting your time."

You're half right.

"Then you wrongly point out that there is no empirical evidence that an intelligent designer can synthesize a living organism, "

No, dear, I pointed out that there is no empirical evidence of an intelligent designer. As soon as you present some of THAT, we can discuss whether or not it/he/she/they "can synthesize a living organism."

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 16, 2011 8:46:07 PM PDT
Irish Lace says:
I'm betting..... No.

In fact, I'll donate $25 dollars to the Red Cross for rescue and relief efforts in Japan if he does.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 16, 2011 9:14:08 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 16, 2011 9:14:45 PM PDT
Brent: Yes, the skeptical response to that article has been highly revealing. None seems able to refute my basic points, and at least a couple of the more honest and less shrill ones have admitted them. Several others have sought minor, tangential points to take issue with, often in an accusatory or insulting tone. Others, as you note, simply shrink into an anonymous, semi-impotent "does not add" vote, used so often on Amazon by those incapable of rational argument.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 16, 2011 9:51:15 PM PDT
SinSeeker says:
BAM says: "The premise is: design is detectable."

If you are talking about design, you are talking about agency, i.e. a designer. From a scientific viewpoint, it would be a matter of interest what the characteristics of this designer would be.

BAM says: "There may be an entity that exists outside of the constraints of our universe, this entity may not need to be created, or evolved or designed."

So this is sneaking in a supernatural assumption while accusing "Darwinists" of "bringing God into the discussion"? Isn't this a bit underhanded?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 17, 2011 1:27:26 AM PDT
DNA is evidence of design

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 17, 2011 2:14:02 AM PDT
DNA is evidence of evolution

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 17, 2011 2:14:11 AM PDT
Wow, this is easy!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 17, 2011 6:16:26 AM PDT
Irish Lace says:
My assertion was that "there is no evidence of an intelligent designer." You can't arrive at empirical evidence of the existence of a "designer" with logic. Because a thing appears to have been purposefully designed is not evidence that it was.

But, again, I realize that this information is useless when aimed at you. It's all been said to you before many, many times. I have no need to argue with you.

Posted on Mar 17, 2011 9:04:37 AM PDT
What is most retarded about this discussion is that Evolution is a proven fact. There is no denying it. The evidence is present everywhere on Earth. So why are knowledgeable, basically intelligent people even arguing with some moron who denies proven facts in favor of a prehistoric theory for which there is no evidence or proof? Are we going to argue the existence and origin of the Tooth Fairy next? Seriously, why don't you just ignore any argument that has absolutely zero value?

Now if you wanted to discuss Steven Hawking's latest book, that would make sense on this topic. I don't believe in god, and so I don't believe in Creationism, but I don't completely agree with Steven Hawking either. Even if all phenomena in the universe, and its origins are calculable and its outcomes ultimately predictable, even if everything can be scientifically explained, that doesn't make existence and life any less mystical and wonderful--at least from my perspective as a Buddhist.

For example, I believe that life is inherent in the universe. I don't believe in the possibility that in the entire universe there is only one planet with life on it--as Christians believe.

I also have a side question for our argumentative Christian friends here. Why can you eat pork? Jews can't eat pork; Jesus was Jewish, so he didn't eat pork; and the Muslims can't eat pork either. What's up with that? If you want to argue about following the Biblical explanation of life, shouldn't you at least observe its precepts?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 17, 2011 11:49:26 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 17, 2011 12:23:36 PM PDT
Well Christianism science works weird. Christianism Science works (or tries to work) as follows:

B.A.M. discovers a new bat. Decides to study it. Catches the bat.

Searches for data on the bat, in only Christianism Science sources of course; no use looking in evolutionary science sources.

Doesn't find the new bat in the Christianism Science sources? Then that means it's up for grabs! He'll be famous!

Okay, now he's ready to do the essential next step, BEFORE writing a formal description of the animal and having it listed in the Christianism Science Journal. And ONLY THEN giving the new species of bat his own name, as the discoverer, as is his right. Fame and honor will be his!

He goes to the Bible. The First and Only Biological Scientological Christianism Sourcebook About Facts in the Physical World.

And he discovers that what he has is in fact a species of bird!

Leviticus 11:

"13 These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle,[a] the vulture, the black vulture, 14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, 19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. "

This is both exciting and frustrating to B.A.M.

Christianism Science will accept his classification of the new species joyfully. "Praise the Lord!" they will exclaim, falling on the floor and talking in tongues: "Illiwi booja corborundum!" When they arise again, exhausted, it will be noted that some of them have dampened their strides.

But those fatheads outside of the pale of Christianism Science will never accept his classification of his new species! This will limit his fame!

There's only one thing to do. A bold move.

He must publish!

Kingdom and phylum are the same: Animalia and Chordata.
Division remains the same: Vertebrata.
But Class is no longer Mammalia.
So B.A.M.'s course is clear.

He grabs the whole set of "Chiroptera" and moves it boldly into Aves!
Praise be the Lord!
But when he went to place the 925 species of living bats into Aves, he made an even more exciting discovery!
His bat was not just a new species of Bird.
It was a new Order of Bird!

All existing Orders of birds have feathers!
And all other birds hatched their eggs! Bats bore their young "alive", without a shell! Almost as if they were mammals, like mice!
How could generations of taxonomists have been so blind!
So Family and Species all had to be named and recorded for the enlightenment of future generations.
Under the circumstances, B.A.M. knew it would only be proper that he get to choose the new order name. Modestly, he submitted to the incessant demands that were bound to come from other Christianism Scientists, and gave his own name to the entire new Order of batbirds.

So the Aves Mortimerus series of 925 new species was born!!!

- Vespertilionidae Kerivoula "Woolly Bat" become of course "Woolly Bird".
- the Fruit Bat becomes the the Fruit Bird
- the Vampire Bat becomes the Vampire Bird
- the Flying Fox Bat becomes the Flying Fox Bird

B.A.M. was so excited by all this he almost had an organism right then and there!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 17, 2011 3:20:55 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 17, 2011 4:37:46 PM PDT
Yothgoboufnir's post: "Why hasn't it been observed? Because it posits that intelligence precedes code -- something we have never observed."

Intelligence precedes Morse code, and C++ code etc...

Yothgoboufnir's post: "As a pseudo-scientific paradigm, "Godly design" sounds much less legitimate, but it's what the phrase "intelligent design" translates into."

Strawman fallacy.

There is no empirical evidence that a single cell evolved by chemical evolution. There is no empirical evidence that a single cell evolved into a multicellular organism. Two big problems for you, so why would you assume that a single cell evolved from non-living chemical, then evolved into a human? Then you wrongly point out that there is no empirical evidence that an intelligent designer can synthesize a living organism, read back aways in this thread, Dr. Venter (working with other scientists) recently intelligently designed a synthetic version of a living organism using mechanisms of design.

Design is a tool in the toolkit of an engineer, it is how they build sophisticated systems. THERE is your empirical evidence. In addition your inability to answer this simple question shows how completely and totally you are brainwashed into looking for only one possible explanation:

Evolution model: matter + energy + time = codes

ID model: matter + energy + time + intelligence = codes

Which one have we ever observed?

Answer that simple question then we can proceed to the next level of discussion. Why do you argue against intelligence? You assert that it is undefined? All known codes have an intelligent origin, there is one code whose origin is either intelligent or unintelligent matter via mindless chemicals arranged themselves into meaningful sequences. DNA is the most sophisticated code known to man, we do not understand fully its functions and intricacies, but work is being done to reverse engineer the code. Why would anyone assume that DNA could evolved via chemical evolution when it has never been observed and there is not one shred of empirical evidence that it could have evolved.

Nucleotides are compatible with protein synthesis, they are not the originators of genes (ordered groups of nucleotides) and chromosomes (ordered groups of genes.) The chemicals are the medium of information storage, but they can no more be the originator the information... no more than paper and pen can be the originator of the encyclopedia Britannica.

We know that intelligence is the only originator of code, everything we observe tells us this. We shouldn't have to define "intelligence" for you, you can do your own homework.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 17, 2011 3:23:32 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 17, 2011 4:44:39 PM PDT
"I believe there's evidence of design in the genome. The genome itself is evidence of design. I also believe that as we study the nature of mutation and the genome and what selection can do, that it is a powerful argument against one of the central tenets of evolution, which is that mutation plus selection creates information." ~John C. Sanford author of Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome Classroom Edition

Happy reading Anne.

Yours truly, BAM aka CD

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 17, 2011 4:11:49 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 17, 2011 4:15:33 PM PDT
Brent:

<< We shouldn't have to define "intelligence" for you, you can do your own homework. >>

Nonsense. "Evolution" means change, but without an operationalization of "evolution", the theory of evolution *BY* natural selection would lack explanatory power. Same goes for any would-be theory whose supposed mechanism is "intelligence". To say that the central concept of your model need not be defined is to concede that your model is essentially undefined and thus non-explanatory.

All your other comments are detrital window-dressing, a distraction from your fundamental concession.

-

<< Intelligence precede Morse code, and C++ code etc... >>

My point was that we have never observed intelligence that operated without a code. I said this quite clearly. Thus you are either not reading or you are dodging.

The issue is not whether intelligence precedes some particular code, but whether it precedes code in general. As far as we know, it doesn't -- but your model posits that it does. The modifications necessary to your ID model to accommodate the actual facts of observation transform your "model" from creation de nihilis into one code being a derivative of prior code. Which, of course, is evolution.

As for whether "Godly design" is an accurate description of ID, I would ask: why do you complain about "naturalistic" bias if your goal is not to bring supernatural beings into the picture?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 17, 2011 5:13:12 PM PDT
MrBooks says:
So if a "coder" is required then who coded the entity that wrote the code for life?

Your "everything with code needs a coder" is just a rehashing of "everything created needs a creator"... which leads inevitably to "well then who created the creator that you are calling God?"

We assume that DNA could emerge without a guiding intelligence because there is no evidence that an intelligence created it... further there is no evidence that a guiding intelligence would be needed in order to make that jump, as every chemical reaction we have discovered so far does not require an intelligence to occur.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 17, 2011 5:59:42 PM PDT
Newton's Law of Gravity hasn't been proved either. Theories are never proved.

They're just - supported by evidence, or
- falsified, or
- supported by evidence so far, but all the data is not in yet,
(And the latter is what happens a lot of the time.)

I'm not impressed by your self-promotion regarding your scientific credentials. You know why?

Because you don't THINK like a scientifically-sophisticated person thinks.

e.g. " All of the stories (lies) about the Neanderthal man, Piltdown man, Peking Man Cro-Magnon man etc... are put out there to be factual, and when they are exposed as fraud no one barely mentions it, it is just quietly swept under the rug after the damage is done. You have to research it to find out that they are frauds. "

Piltdown was a famous fraud, and was exposed -- by science. Not by religion.

What evidence do you have that the rest are frauds, as you claim?

(See? To baldly assert something WITHOUT EVIDENCE is not what a trained science professional would do.)

What evidence that
- Neanderthal man
- Peking Man
- Cro-Magnon man
have been "exposed" as fraud, as you claim?
-------------
If you are a lab technician as you claim, all I hope is that your work is CLOSELY supervised by a good competent professional, who understands the difference between evidence and opinion.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 17, 2011 6:42:29 PM PDT
Yothgoboufnir's: "As a pseudo-scientific paradigm, "Godly design" sounds much less legitimate, but it's what the phrase "intelligent design" translates into."

BAM: Strawman fallacy.

Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_document
Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 17, 2011 10:59:43 PM PDT
If design were detectable, then we could detect it in natural phenomena.

But what we detect is a whole bunch of waste, inefficiency, needless suffering, colossal failures of entire species which go extinct, and mankind -- supposed by the I.D. boosters to be the PURPOSE behind all this presumed 'intelligent' design - being randomly attacked and invaded by the most unintelligent beings of all: one-celled animals. Or even tinier, simpler bodies. Not even 'living' things at all.

If that's 'design', it's not very intelligent.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 18, 2011 5:54:12 PM PDT
Irish Lace says:
Oh my fricken' gawd! That is the funniest thing I've read in a week! "He had an organism right then and there!" Sorry.. tears running down my face. Laughing til my sides hurt.

Priceless, DT. Absofrickenlutely priceless.

Thank you!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 18, 2011 6:04:47 PM PDT
Irish Lace says:
I pointed out that there is no empirical evidence of an intelligent designer. I further stated that as soon as you present some of THAT, we can discuss whether or not it/he/she/they "can synthesize a living organism."

And you give me a quote from a book by a young earth creationist who believes the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and states openly that it was created by God? Is this what you consider to be evidence of an intelligent designer? Seriously? Is that what YOU believe too, Brent?

OK. Never mind. As I said, we all know what you believe and it has little to actually do with science.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 18, 2011 7:06:00 PM PDT
Irish Lace's post: "I pointed out that there is no empirical evidence of an intelligent designer."

ID does not assert that an intelligent designer is detectable, the only thing that ID posits is that design is detectable. Period. We can perform experiments that demonstrate irreducible complexity. IC systems are not evolvable. If a system can be shown that it did not evolve (with zero intelligent input), then it was designed with intelligence. There are no other options.

"There is no empirical evidence that a single cell evolved by chemical evolution. There is no empirical evidence that a single cell evolved into a multicellular organism."

I posted this a couple of days ago. It must have gone over your head, or you just choose to ignore it because you know it's true.
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