Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Sun Care Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl 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 201-225 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 5:14:55 PM PDT
<<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.>>

I suspect that too.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 5:27:00 PM PDT
Dare I say that his failure to deal with challenging questions is 'evidence' that he is just ducking the hard ones? Using the 'Golly, I didn't see that one, because I shut my eyes' dodge?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 5:34:16 PM PDT
SinSeeker says:
Irish Lace says: "It just gives him a convenient excuse to selectively ignore that which he can't answer."

He apparently hasn't put me on ignore yet but he still won't answer my questions.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 7:16:14 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 24, 2011 7:27:30 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 7:37:22 PM PDT
"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."

This is obviously insignificant. Every year there are about 140 earthquakes worldwide, magnitude 6.0 or greater; given a few very large earthquakes over a few years, it is likely that one or more will coincide with what could be described as a "large aftershock." Also, there is no independently prescribed pattern about March 11, or any causative explanation offered. There is a vast difference between this hum-drum "coincidence" and the specified complexity of DNA; that you offer such an analogy, suggests you are not thinking about the matter in sufficient depth.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 9:19:09 PM PDT
Brent:
<<Do you know of a code that wasn't produced by a coder?>>

Do you know of a coder who predates all code?

What you are arguing for is creation de nihilis, plain and simple. Let there be no confusion that what you are calling "design" is creationism. (I doubt there was much confusion...)

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 9:33:54 PM PDT
Seeker says:
Do you know of a code that wasn't produced by a coder? Please share.

Sure.........it's called chance. Survival of the Fittest, the Luck of the Draw, ...................take your pick................

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 9:53:19 PM PDT
A. Rosenberg says:
Oh, for heaven's sake, Mortimer, why don't you try reading studying real biology and anthropology before you spout off? Piltdown man never received much credence outside Great Britain (though the first critical paper was also published in Britain, one year after the "discovery." The majority of British anthropologists were proved wrong, which is a good sign that science actually works.

Cro-magnon man were as human as we are. Neanderthals were almost like us, but with larger muscles and brow ridges. If you've got white ancestors, then you're part Neanderthal--be proud of who you are. Peking man is a fine example of Homo erectus, our predecessor (and if you have East Asian ancestors, I'd argue that you probably have some Peking man in you too). And we didn't evolve from apelike creatures--we evolved from apes, and apes we remain.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 9:57:35 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 9, 2011 9:52:37 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 9:58:25 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 9, 2011 9:52:37 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 9:59:38 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 9, 2011 9:52:37 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 10:29:22 PM PDT
B.A.M. says: " Do you know of a code that wasn't produced by a coder? Please share. "

That is probably the most ignorant remark I have read even by the modest standards of these threads.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 10:38:26 PM PDT
SinSeeker says:
BAM says: "Just because you don't know who the coder is, doesn't mean that the coder doesn't exist."

We already know who the "coder" would have to be - some supernatural being. Which makes intelligent design creationism religion not science.

Are you going to concede this point, or are you going to continue ignoring my posts on this?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 11:22:48 PM PDT
No, she meant "peaks." A good example of using "peak" in a sentence would be, "He peaked in 7th grade."

Posted on Mar 25, 2011 1:21:28 AM PDT
Phospho1 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 25, 2011 3:32:48 AM PDT
BAM:
I think you are confused by the words. Most codes known to man are, yes, designed by humans. They're designed for communication. Or in the case of computers (And, yes I do know who created FORTRAN), instruction. Somebody early on in the study of DNA made the analogy that it was like a code, and yes, people have used that analogy to explain the workings of DNA & the cell -- but that doesn't mean it is a code, and even if it is a code, it doesn't it certainly doesn't mean it was designed.

Prior to 1972, all known nuclear fission reactions were man made. In 1972 a spent nuclear reactor was found in the Oklo uranium mine. Using the exact same form of your argument, we can safely conclude that this Oklo nuclear reactor was man made. All other fission reactors are man made, so this one MUST be man made, right? Except it was made 1.7 billion years ago.. hmmmmm.....

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 25, 2011 3:45:59 AM PDT
BAM: Do you know of a code that wasn't produced by a coder? Please share.

All known codes were created by man. Does that mean if DNA is a code, it was created by man?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 25, 2011 5:56:12 AM PDT
SinSeeker says:
Phospho1,

Omigosh, you're right. Your concise and erudite post has lead to the scales falling from my eyes. Darwinism is a giant conspiracy by biologists worldwide. I want to do something about it by undertaking research in intelligent design creationism.

However, I'll need your help. I've been through some of the intelligent design creationism literature and all I've been able to find are some badly thought out criticisms of evolutionary theory.

Can you help me out by suggesting some underlying principles, mechanisms, hypotheses, and experiments I can use to start my new career in intelligent design creationism research?

Thanks!

(Please note this is a repeat of a question I asked BAM at the beginning of this thread, but he's been too busy undertaking research in intelligent design to answer me.)

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 25, 2011 9:31:57 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 26, 2011 4:30:07 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 25, 2011 9:58:12 AM PDT
Step #1: check your brain at the door.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 25, 2011 10:01:21 AM PDT
Seeker says:
Step #2: Suspend knowledge of reality.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 25, 2011 10:06:59 AM PDT
BAM: Two or more parts that work together in order to perform a purposeful task exhibit functional complexity. These two or more parts are configured in a way that allow them to perform a useful core function. As the number of moving parts increases, and as we begin to understand the critical interdependency of those parts in relation to each other, the likelihood of indirect scenarios plummets, and the probability of design skyrockets. At a certain point, design becomes a logical conclusion to most of us.

Ecosystems contain many organisms that work together in different roles working together to "survive". Each organism plays an interdependent role in the ecosystem. The number of organisms in some ecosystems (for example, the biofilms that form in the human mouth -- some 600 species) is at times huge. So now I can assume that, based on probabilities, that the biofilm ecosystem that forms in my mouth is designed?

See, that's the thing, when you look at nature you see inherent complexity everywhere. Some species couldn't exist without the help of others, but rather than assume that they must have been designed to work that way, REAL scientists try understand the pressures, twists, and turns that lead them to be completely dependent on each other. They don't jump to the conclusion that, just because they don't see how they could have existed without each other, these species were designed that way. If the discoverers of the Oklo nuclear reactor had said "we don't see how this could have formed naturally, so it must have been intelligently designed" would have reached the wrong conclusion and a great discovery would have been missed.

But my conclusion is that it is useless trying to argue this with you, because I don't think you actually do any thinking on your own. Your response to me was taken textually from the Discovery Institute's page. If you'd like to do some of your own thinking, I'm more than willing to discuss with you. If you want to repeat verbatim what others have said, forget it. I'd much rather discuss with them, since they actually might have some original responses.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 25, 2011 10:47:47 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 25, 2011 11:03:59 AM PDT
Brent:

<<Mount Rushmore was obviously designed and built with intelligence, but it does not possess functional complexity. A piece of rock smashed apart to obtain a cutting instrument is not functionally complex, although it was intelligently fashioned in order to perform a function. A modified experiment may test for simple objects that possess characteristics of purpose/function, but this experiment requires "Functional Complexity."

Mechanism: The mechanism of Intelligent Design is "design." Design is the means by which engineers build sophisticated systems. Design is a tool in the toolkit of the designer. [....]

ID predicts that designed systems will have detectable characteristics of an intelligent origin. When there is design, there was a designer.>>

-

Brent, your spiel is a fancy way of avoiding talk about any of the *tangible* signs of "designed" objects: the manufacture process. There are tests of "design" that apply as well to a stone tool as anything more complex. We don't need to trump up vacuous claims about how complex is too complex. Why on earth would you focus on "design" as a tool in engineers' toolkit while utterly overlooking all the *other tools* that characterize engineering?

Mount Rushmore is a product of intelligent agency, yes. I can characterize it as such with observations such as these:

1) near the site, there remain pulleys, drills, etc., that could have been used in making such a sculpture
2) near the site, there are castings of a size and distribution that could have been produced by drilling/blasting; the sculpture itself bears boreholes and other signs consistent with the "manufacture hypothesis"
3) near the site, there are observable critters who are known to complete such projects as the sculpture
4) near the site, there remain sketches and other plans documenting intent and method of producing the sculpture

In other words, all of the following are observed

1) tools
2) byproducts
3) brains
4) blueprints

These types of evidence are present in the case of ANY human-designed product, from stone tools to microchips. There is NO such evidence for the origin of organisms. As it overlooks the tangible matter of manufacture, "design" is a vacuous, evasive way of saying "creationism".

-

http://www.amazon.com/tag/intelligent%20design/forum/ref=cm_cd_ttp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=FxHUG0FZ0RAGQG&cdThread=Tx3B4ENMGE277QN&displayType=tagsDetail

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 25, 2011 11:11:18 AM PDT
I'm seeing more and more evidence that Christians who have an agenda -- God will honor them more, or whatever -- are far LESS ethical than regular folks, religious or non-religious, when it comes to honest, straightforward posts.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 25, 2011 11:19:47 AM PDT
Seeker says:
It's all about SAVING the heathens, even when they have to deny reality to do it. Moral obligation based on non-knowledge.
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