Your Garage Summer Reading Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc PME Fire TV Stick Subscribe & Save Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer WienerDog WienerDog WienerDog  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis Segway miniPro
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 76-100 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 18, 2011 7:12:57 PM PDT
SciGuy says:
BAM/CD/Largo posts:

"We can perform experiments that demonstrate irreducible complexity."

Reply: Wow, this is exciting news guys! Please describe the "experiments" in detail. Surely a Nobel is in the wings for the experimenters.

I've got an idea the "experiments" involved throwing a crowbar into the inner workings of the cell and making the cell stop functioning. Nice try but no cigar!

Posted on Mar 18, 2011 9:16:31 PM PDT
<<ID does not assert that an intelligent designer is detectable, the only thing that ID posits is that design is detectable. Period.>>

>>ID does not assert that a magician is detectable, the only thing that ID posits is that magic is detectable. Period.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 19, 2011 12:13:13 AM PDT
Thanks, Irish!

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 19, 2011 8:02:20 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 19, 2011 8:06:58 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 19, 2011 10:22:16 AM PDT
Design implies a designer.

I wish you guys would use a dictionary once in a while. I get tired of trotting to MINE because you're too lazy or duplicitous to use one.

In this case I go with 'duplicitous'.

You want to attribute the alleged design you imagine is there to your god; but you don't want the words 'your god' attached to the alleged design.

"Design: a plan or scheme conceived in the mind of something to be done; the preliminary conception of an idea that is to be carried into effect by action; a project.
Contrivance in accordance with a preconceived plan." (O.U.D.)

So there's an intelligent mind behind an intelligent design.

And you're trying to pretend that there was an 'intelligent design', and you're trying to pretend that the you are not ascirbing the 'intelligent mind' behind the 'intelligent design' to your god.

It's the elephant in the living room, BAM.

Brent A. Mortimer, you are a fool if you don't know how obvious your little ploy is here.

Everyone knows what you are up to.

Okay, then, BAM. Can you answer this question?

Whose intelligent mind IS behind the 'intelligent design' ?

(And be careful: your god is listening. You wouldn't want to be guilty of whoring after strange gods, would you?)

Also by the way: no, nothing you said was 'over' Irish's head. And your second supposition is also false. She didn't ignore it because it's true.

She ignored it because it's been refuted time and again in these threads: the evidence is in the rocks.

Genesis doesn't say that your god made the elements, the compounds, the prions, and finally the bacteria, does he?

The reason: the O.T. boys who wrote the bible didn't know anything about them. They had no science, no microscopes, no body of data collected from all over the world.

But the writing of their history is in the rocks and their layers.

The layers that were laid down before any humans existed.

And bible literalists are too dumb to figure out the wisdom that is in the rocks.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 19, 2011 10:36:02 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 19, 2011 10:42:37 AM PDT
BAM: ID does not assert that an intelligent designer is detectable, the only thing that ID posits is that design is detectable. Period.

And yet all their "theory" can do is make that supposition. There are no supporting facts. It all comes down to, "if it looks designed, it is designed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

BAM: "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."

The truth or falsity of those assertions is irrelevant. There is a vast leap between your above assertions to your conclusion that those statements somehow *prove* that life originated through divine intervention. You are arguing the "God of the gaps."

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.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 19, 2011 11:10:50 AM PDT
Irish Lace says:
"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. "

Um... no. I don't believe you. Link us to one, please.

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

So what? To the best of my knowledge, no one would claim that as fact. It is an hypothesis that is under study.

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

I am not sufficiently informed to discuss the science of this intelligently; others would do it brilliantly. I do, however, have a basic understanding of the reasons that this is the most parsimonious explanation for what we observe in nature. It's not my way to choose magic over evidence. And it's also not my way to ascribe to magic anything that I don't understand. Therefore, in the absence of evidence, I find I must be content with "I don't know."

As you offer no actual evidence beyond your baseless assertions, I must conclude that you don't know either.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 19, 2011 11:29:45 AM PDT
SciGuy says:
BAM, CD, Largo (the unholy trinity),

Where's the experimental evidence you have. Remember your statement from a few posts back:

BAM posted:

"We can perform experiments that demonstrate irreducible complexity."

Time to put up or shut up BAM.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 19, 2011 11:48:00 AM PDT
SinSeeker says:
D. Thrower asks BAM: "Whose intelligent mind IS behind the 'intelligent design' ?"

Good luck trying to get an answer out of BAM on this one. I tried to engage in a discussion about this some time back, but got ignored.

It would seem to me that inquiring into the nature of the designer is a perfectly valid question.

The elephant is clearly god. There's no logical way out of that conclusion. But BAM accuses "Darwinists" of making "supernatural assumptions" without acknowledging that there is no other possibility.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 19, 2011 11:49:52 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 19, 2011 11:52:31 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 Mar 19, 2011 12:00:32 PM PDT
SinSeeker says:
If you're going to try and pretend that intelligent design creationism is a scientific theory, then inquiring into the nature of the designer is a valid scientific question. No reason why it can't be discussed here.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 19, 2011 1:58:25 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 19, 2011 2:32:40 PM PDT
B.A.M issues an "is there a doctor in the house" type of cry for help.

Fortunately I can help.

SinSeeker had asked: "It would seem to me that inquiring into the nature of the designer is a perfectly valid question."

To which B.A.M. replied: "It is a perfectly valid question. I would love to discuss it. Is there a philosophy forum?"

In fact, there is.

This means that B.A.M. sees that the reply to Sinseeker's question is metaphysical: beyond the power of science.

Which also implies that B.A.M.'s ANSWER, that some 'intelligence' designed an emergent system, is metaphysics.

This is somewhat similar to that which the philosopher Henri-Louis Bergson described in his 'Emergent' philosophy; which won the 1927 Nobel prize for Literature. (Nobel does not have a separate category for 'metaphysics'.)

Like, but not identical. Bergson said that the design is implicit in the very nature of matter itself.

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

Bergson omits that one last retrograde step, to the ancient pagan Greeks: Plato, Aristotle, et al, did, in assigning the cause to an Unmoved Mover.

Which is where B.A.M. took it.

Which, by the way, where B.A.M. has been all along: in metaphysics.

We are free to take that final step, or just rest with Bergson, with the property of emergence of species intrinsic to matter/energy.

But at least we take it the hell out of Science.
-----------------
Where we can stay with Evolution Theory, which, supported as it is with physical evidence, belongs in the realm of Science.

Or come up with a better hypothesis. And support it with physical evidence.
-------------
Thanks, B.A.M., for showing us the way.

Will you guys ask Amazon to re-locate the thread to Philosophy?

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

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 19, 2011 9:26:43 PM PDT
Irish Lace says:
"
The reason: the O.T. boys who wrote the bible didn't know anything about them. They had no science, no microscopes, no body of data collected from all over the world.

But the writing of their history is in the rocks and their layers.

The layers that were laid down before any humans existed.

And bible literalists are too dumb to figure out the wisdom that is in the rocks. "

There you go.

Posted on Mar 19, 2011 9:46:18 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Mar 19, 2011 9:46:29 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 20, 2011 12:02:13 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 9, 2011 9:52:03 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 20, 2011 12:06:13 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 9, 2011 9:52:03 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 20, 2011 12:16:58 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 9, 2011 9:52:03 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 20, 2011 5:21:39 AM PDT
Irish Lace says:
"Brent A. Mortimer says: "We can perform experiments that demonstrate irreducible complexity."

Like? "

He has remained silent on this question.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 20, 2011 5:42:09 AM PDT
Davyd says:
JPThiel: "Find something in Nature which is utterly useless--such as ... the entire cast of Jersey Shore."

I think this pretty much closes the book on the discussion. There is no coming back from that. More proof doth no man need.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 20, 2011 6:00:08 AM PDT
Davyd says:
Anal: "One must contemplate the cuckoo and ask in what way this is "Intelligent Design" by a loving god."

Davyd: He was hung over that day. Can't a god get a break once in a while?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 20, 2011 6:22:40 AM PDT
krad1964 says:
BAM: "A comb Jelly fish is more sophisticated than a sponge, so this tends to falsify evolution."

It might if one thinks evolution is always striving for complexity. Or if one only reads creationist authors.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 20, 2011 6:25:17 AM PDT
Darwin's favorite example (as I recall) was an ichneumon wasp that paralyzed a caterpiller by stinging; then laid eggs inside the prey's body. When the eggs hatched, the infants fed upon the body of their paralyzed host. By the time the prey finally died, and its insides had been eaten, the wasp larvae went into the pupal stage.

I would say the god who designed this has some sadistic traits: that means deriving pleasure from watching another being's suffering..

And that's pretty consistent with what the bible tells us. This dude created us flawed so he'd get to see us grovel for mercy. We're born flawed, or 'sinful', or 'utterly corrupt', depending on what sect you consult. And anyone who doesn't get the chance to learn about him, so they can adore him and be saved, gets burned eternally; even though it was that god's will that his hapless victim never heard of him.

Sounds like the guy that designed the ichneuman fly, all right.

But luckily for me, I think that Bad God was made up by people who wanted to enslave others: in other words, by Bad People. So I see no malice in the ichneuman fly, whose traits emerged as a result of random beneficial (for the wasp) mutations.

I feel sorry for those who believe. It seems to make some of them angry and bitter.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 20, 2011 6:46:02 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 9, 2011 9:52:04 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 20, 2011 8:06:05 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 20, 2011 8:50:00 AM PDT
They just don't get that mutations occur somewhat randomly. They can't shake loose the notion that everything has a purpose.

If a cat is born with a kinked tail, that may or may not function well for balancing.

If the cat is thriving and reproducing successfully, then the trait may persist in its offspring. In other words, an animal can survive with a less-than-perfect trait.

But the tail is an important tool for balancing. If the enviroment for that modified 'strain' of cat changes, and competition over food becomes fiercer, that animal may lose out: it can't 'afford' the less functional tail any more. The trait disappears, because all who carried it failed to raise offspring to maturity.

It seems like common sense to me.

If a bitch had two puppies, and one had three legs and the other had four legs, and those pups had to compete for rabbits in terrain where there were lots of dogs, which one would likely produce more living descendants? The three-legger or the four-legger?

But for some reason I can't fathom, some people find the whole question absurd. They assume everything must have a 'reason'; so that three-legged dog must have been 'designed' that way.

Here are some examples of bad design.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_0eUkQeTtXGY/S-A5OGPYkLI/AAAAAAAAAA8/9eXJ-3iFmv4/s1600/dajjal02.jpg

http://tinyurl.com/4cbpaa4

http://www.pbase.com/perrona/image/107203827/original

Who is the 'other' designer? The one who is not-so-hot?

Satan, I suppose.

But god even has to take responsibility for what Satan does.

Because god created him as he is, and then gave him free will.

So god is responsible for all the evil and suffering.

He designed the system that way.

Still the mental slaves that follow the teachings of those who worship this 'god' insist he is 'good'.

Random copying errors ?

or evidence of God's Intelligent Design?
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