RE: EXPELLED (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 5:01:45 PM)

quote:

If the institution feels the theory is worthy enough to bear fruit, than that's their decision? But its their choice, and ID'ers don't get to cry conspiracy theories when their pet theory just doesn't pass muster for those institutions when they make their choices for what areas of research to pursue.


That isn’t the question; as you think research is critical to the question at hand, would you support academics pursuing ID research within the confines of academic institutions?

quote:

Already said I hadn't yet, but I've read quite a bit about it and of course, watched all the trailers. Behe himself is still employed at his university, even though they dont endorse his views... Arguably the pioneer of the modern ID movement hasn't been 'expelled' for his beliefs... so wheres the conspiracy again?


He has tenure; that still has some bearing. And he has often spoken of the opposition he has faced when he started developing the idea.



Sartrian -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 5:04:48 PM)

quote:

Evidence? How about the origin of eukaryotes? How long does that take? The cell? Any idea?


Well, I don't have a biology textbook handy, but if I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that it took thousands of years to form a cell. Simpler lifeforms like bacteria reproduce, mutate, and evolve incredibly quickly, so I would imagine that the hypothetical non-living protein replicator mutated and evolved incredibly quickly as well.

quote:

Ah yes, the only way to disprove evolution is through the miraculous; and this is what passes as science in your mind?


It was an example. The Darwinian Theory is falsifiable-- if we found a complex life form in a period far too early for it to exist, then the Darwinian Theory of Evolution would have to be severely rewritten, or discarded entirely. But nobody's ever found anything remotely disproving the accuracy of the Darwinian Theory. You'd think if god created rabbits at the beginning of the world, we'd find rabbit skeletons in the deepest dig sites. But we haven't! Funny, that.

quote:

And I am less than impressed that you think your opinion is sufficient evidence.


Would you like me to repost the logical exercise that I've been repeating umpteen times? Okay, but only for you.

"Every organism on Earth-- bacteria, grass, roundworms, fish, humans-- shares genes. This conclusively shows that all lifeforms descended from a common ancestor. And what common ancestor could we share with bacteria? What could be simpler than a single-celled organism? Well, viruses and prions are incredibly simple, replicating agents that skirt the line between "life" and "unliving." It's also been shown that viruses evolve, which is good evidence that a non-living, replicating protein cluster could have led to the formation of DNA and by association, all life on Earth."

"Besides, evolution is completely rational for one simple reason (that I keep repeating, BTW). All life forms on Earth share genes. Such an occurrence would only be possible if all life forms sprung from a common ancestry. That ancestry would have to be an agent simpler than even bacteria. Things like viruses and prions show us that a non-living protein replicator is possible, and backs up the idea that we sprung from a common, abiogenetic ancestor."



Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 5:11:21 PM)

quote:

It's interesting to see how easily my thoughts can be distorted! Maybe I should use smaller words next time. See, my point was that the Germ Theory of Disease is the accepted standard of medicine because it fits with our observations and makes good predictions. If you came up with a better theory, then it would be put into practice. But trying to refute an accurate theory by saying, "goddidit" is irresponsible and ignorant (and in the case of Germ Theory, dangerous). The same thing works for the Darwinian Theory of Evolution-- it fits with our observation and makes good predictions. It's irresponsible and ignorant to dismiss all of our scientific investigation with the handwave of "goddidit--" and in the case of people teaching impressionable students, it's disingenuous and mind-numbing.


I didn’t distort your 'thoughts', I addressed your logic, which is atrocious.

As evolution is not nearly as well established, nor powerfully explanatory, nor straight forward, nor criticial to daily operations as germ theory is, your conclusion is not warranted.

Indeed, your example brings this sharply into focus; as germ theory sufficiently provides a robust explanation for the phenomena it describes, there is really no room nor reason for an alternative explanation; if evolution did the same, it would not need atheists to rally around it.

quote:

Conclusion? God has never been observed, measured, or quantified. It is not only unscientific, it's idiotic to insert him into any theory whatsoever, whether that attempt at insertion be creationism or "Intelligent Design." Now, if you manage to find god, call for evolutionary biologists. I'm sure they'd love to meet him.


Well, good then, we agree; as ID doesn’t attempt to “observe, measured, or quantify” God, it is perfectly viable as a scientific notion.

quote:

String theory is a hypothesis that cannot be tested yet, due to the limitations of our technology. I have yet to read of any physicists who claim that String theory is an accurate representation of our universe. And abiogenesis is a valid theory as to the origin of life, due to reasons that I keep mentioning over and over again.


Try hard to actually answer the questions.

As neither theory is experimentally validated, would you oppose the discussion of these theories in a classroom until they were?

quote:

Not until the Southern Baptist Convention decides to fund a school of evolutionary biology.


Presumably their members pay taxes as well. Shall I let you know where to send your financial contribution?



Bettawrekonize -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 5:14:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sartrian
Nope. Fortunately, DNA provides a record that can't be tampered with. Genes don't lie, unlike historians. There's no interpretation, unless you'd like to consider reading the results "interpretation."


I already refuted this.

quote:

and UCD is historical.


See above

quote:


DNA mutations can be traced backwards, and mDNA remains unchanged for huge periods of time-- thus making any changes easily observable and traceable backwards.


Read my post refuting your interpretations of this.

quote:


Genes cannot be transmitted unless an organism reproduces. If a human being and bacteria share genes, then ipso facto, bacteria are related to us through a common ancestor.


ROFLOL. ipso facto, by method of you proclaiming it. Read my post refuting it and expose students to my refutations. Let them decide.

quote:


It's not open to "interpretation."


Because only your interpretation stands.

quote:


The evidence stands, and it can't be otherwise unless you plug your ears, screaming, "It's not real! They're all conspiring against me!"


Are you going to read my refutations or are you going to keep plugging your ears saying, "you're wrong, you're wrong."

quote:


Good point! Unfortunately, that's not what I was trying to say. I was trying to show you that a non-living protein replicator is possible in nature. And you concede that it is.


Depends on how you define "living." The point is that in nature they depend on already existing organisms and if those organisms didn't exist before these replicators, you have no evidence suggesting that these replicators would exist.

quote:


When I build my time machine, you'll be the first one that I call. Science isn't about proving something. Science is about forming theories that conform to what we observe and making theories that have predictive capabilities.


Science welcomes academic freedom. Evolution is anti - scientific because it censors academic freedom.

quote:


A non-living protein replicator is feasable,


Again, in nature it occurs within extant organisms.

quote:


and fits with what we've observed, due to:


If you assume evolution.

quote:


1. Our most ancient common ancestor had to be simpler than a single-celled bacteria, pointing towards a non-living protein replicator.


Assuming evolution is true.

quote:


2. Viruses and prions exist.


In nature, they exist within existing organisms.

quote:


Therefore, it's feasible that a non-living protein replicator could *even* exist.


Depends on how you define "living" but the point is that they don't exist in nature outside of existing organisms and you have no evidence suggesting that they arise in nature independently of already existing organisms.

quote:


They reinforce each other.


They don't reinforce UCD.

quote:


I don't need to directly observe the creation of life, because the Darwinian Theory of Evolution and the theory of Abiogenesis fit with our observations.


They fit within your interpretation. Let students be exposed to both sides and let them decide.

quote:


I never said anything about my opinion. You went off on some weird tangent about history teachers and evolution, and I was trying to make sense of your post in my response. Sorry I wasn't clear on that.


essentialsaltes went off into a tangent and I was just refuting him.

quote:


By me. You keep saying I'm wrong without putting forward any evidence as to *why* I'm wrong.


Did you read my post that I linked to?

quote:


You didn't address anything, I'm afraid to say.


Yes I did. Read the posts I linked to.

quote:


Ooh, lovely ad hominem attack. But at any rate-- I do believe that outdated scientific theories ought to be addressed, if only to show why the theory was less correct than later theories. "Intelligent Design," on the other hand, is not scientific, and should be dismissed from classrooms at the first sight of its ugly theological head.


Just because you say so?

quote:


Science isn't about proving things. Science is about interpreting the facts and creating theories as to why those facts occur, using observations that fit with the fact's effects and its future actions. I've repeatedly told you the theories and backed them up with detailed evidence as to their accuracy. I can't show you abiogenetic formation of life, but I can tell you why it's the most plausible reason for our existence, and evidence that backs it up. But if you choose to not listen to me, I don't really care. The facts exist. The evidence exists. Their existence is not contingent upon your beliefs.


Again, your alleged interpretations of the evidence have been refuted. Expose those refutations to students and you are free to criticize them.


quote:


Of course it's happening right now-- but slowly.


We have never observed UCD. No one has ever observed a molecule evolve into a man, so it is something you are claiming happened in the past.

quote:


Speciation of complex eukaryotes takes millions of years. And it doesn't change the fact that whatever species is produced, it comes originally from the common ancestor of all life.


Even if true, millions of years is not falsifiable and hence unscientific.


quote:


I have a problem with ignorant theology being passed off as truth by biased instructors who don't care a bit about mixing their personal indoctrination with objective scientific truth.


Just because you label it ignorant doesn't mean its so. Also, scientists are no less bias than anyone else, they are people too.


quote:


Then let me boil it down for you: Fairy tales should not be passed off as truth.


So why is evolution passed off as truth at the expense of tax dollars and truth when its not true? Who are you to decide what is true over anyone else and dictate that students should be brainwashed with your opinions of truth while censoring all criticisms and opposing views.

quote:


That is dishonest, deceitful, and lazy.


Restricting academic freedom to promote the atheistic religion at the expense of tax dollars is dishonest.

quote:


Saying that god created all life has no evidence backing it up, brings theological questions into a field of science, and encourages the lazy answer of "goddidit."


Even if true, they don't have to label it "science."

quote:


I've been the one bringing all the evidence to the table, whereas you keep saying it's not correct and providing nothing to back you up. I'm less than impressed by your criticism.


Have you even read my link?


quote:


If you came up with a theory that refuted the Darwinian Theory, sure. It'd be a great boon to science if you could back it up. Unfortunately, what you want brought into science departments is thinly veiled theology. It's deceitful to tell impressionable students a lie and pass it off as truth.


Who are you to determine whether it refutes darwinian hypothesis? Let the students decide.

quote:


Science is not an "issue," again. It does not demand that a bunch of college kids sit around and give their opinions as to why the Darwinian Theory is icky.


Science encourages academic freedom and open inquiry, evolution can't withstand criticism so it censors what science encourages. Evolution is anti - scientific.

quote:


The Darwinian Theory is the most accurate theory of evolution, and until somebody finds a rabbit in the Precambrian layer, it's the only theory that should be used to teach evolution.


Where did Darwin say a rabbit in the precambrian layer would falsify UCD?

quote:


Oh, is this another one of your "refutations" that coincidentally enough, doesn't have any evidence to back it up?


Darwin himself acknowledged that he got much of his ideas from a creationist in his book.

quote:


Repeating over and over again that you can fly to Venus doesn't make it any more true.


The fact that its true makes it true.

quote:


I would argue that definition you pulled up has nothing to do with science, considering that science doesn't try to investigate the principles of being, knowledge, or conduct. But it's a moot point. I don't really care either way.


It doesn't?



Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 5:19:11 PM)

quote:

Well, I don't have a biology textbook handy, but if I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that it took thousands of years to form a cell. Simpler lifeforms like bacteria reproduce, mutate, and evolve incredibly quickly, so I would imagine that the hypothetical non-living protein replicator mutated and evolved incredibly quickly as well.


Well, at least we agree it’s a guess, and not science.

quote:

It was an example. The Darwinian Theory is falsifiable-- if we found a complex life form in a period far too early for it to exist, then the Darwinian Theory of Evolution would have to be severely rewritten, or discarded entirely. But nobody's ever found anything remotely disproving the accuracy of the Darwinian Theory. You'd think if god created rabbits at the beginning of the world, we'd find rabbit skeletons in the deepest dig sites. But we haven't! Funny, that.


Ya mean like a comb jelly?

quote:

"Every organism on Earth-- bacteria, grass, roundworms, fish, humans-- shares genes. This conclusively shows that all lifeforms descended from a common ancestor. And what common ancestor could we share with bacteria? What could be simpler than a single-celled organism? Well, viruses and prions are incredibly simple, replicating agents that skirt the line between "life" and "unliving." It's also been shown that viruses evolve, which is good evidence that a non-living, replicating protein cluster could have led to the formation of DNA and by association, all life on Earth."


This has nothing to do with the differences between organisms which evolution purports to explain.

quote:

"Besides, evolution is completely rational for one simple reason (that I keep repeating, BTW). All life forms on Earth share genes. Such an occurrence would only be possible if all life forms sprung from a common ancestry. That ancestry would have to be an agent simpler than even bacteria.


Again, this is a nonsense conclusion; it’s like saying “all computers share operating systems, and therefore all computers sprung from a common ancestor via unguided means”. Common design does not demonstrate unguided development, and so is not support for the mechanisms of evolution.

quote:

Things like viruses and prions show us that a non-living protein replicator is possible, and backs up the idea that we sprung from a common, abiogenetic ancestor."


None of these things is viable apart from extant living cellular machinery and the information systems which drive them; they provide zero evidence that a cell can arise via abiogenesis, and no experimental evidence has ever demonstrated anything of the sort.



essentialsaltes -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 5:24:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

think an explanation of Paley and his watch would be justified, but not teaching "ID" or creationism.


Just out of curiousity, do you think string theory should be discussed in science classes?


There's really no substantive way to discuss string theory until grad school in physics (and maybe not even then; I'm not sure I ever learned anything about string theory in a class). I confess that when I taught high school physics, I spent part of a 'dead' day in the schedule (the seniors had already taken their final, but had to be in class) telling my students about particle physics & string theory. But I wouldn't say that string theory "should" be discussed. The debate about string theory hasn't been settled, and it's at so high a level that there's just no point bringing it up in high school or undergraduate physics classes.

quote:

What about abiogenesis?


Some sort of discussion is probably warranted like that alluded to here in the forum, when futuredocter37 posted how many "may haves" and "might haves" were included in the textbook discussion of abiogenesis.

"Science doesn't know for certain how life arose, but it might have happened something like this. Okay, now that (one way or another) we've got some life, let's discuss the stuff science does know a lot more about."



Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 5:27:20 PM)

quote:

There's really no substantive way to discuss string theory until grad school in physics (and maybe not even then; I'm not sure I ever learned anything about string theory in a class). I confess that when I taught high school physics, I spent part of a 'dead' day in the schedule (the seniors had already taken their final, but had to be in class) telling my students about particle physics & string theory. But I wouldn't say that string theory "should" be discussed. The debate about string theory hasn't been settled, and it's at so high a level that there's just no point bringing it up in high school or undergraduate physics classes.


Well then speaking to students about experimentally unproven theories wouldn't seem to hurt there science education.

quote:

Some sort of discussion is probably warranted like that alluded to here in the forum, when futuredocter37 posted how many "may haves" and "might haves" were included in the textbook discussion of abiogenesis.

"Science doesn't know for certain how life arose, but it might have happened something like this. Okay, now that (one way or another) we've got some life, let's discuss the stuff science does know a lot more about."


And at such a juncture, there is no reason ID couldn't be mentioned.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 5:32:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
And at such a juncture, there is no reason ID couldn't be mentioned.


As long as no positive arguments are introduced, otherwise the teacher may lose his job.



Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 5:39:01 PM)

quote:

As long as no positive arguments are introduced, otherwise the teacher may lose his job.


I think what is needed is a science Pope, and anytime anyone suggests something the science Pope (adhering to a strict interpretation of allowed science, agreed upon by the science Cardinals of course) doesn't like, he excommunicates said heretic from the science academy. That way we don't need to muck about with all these different opinions on science.



Sartrian -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 5:42:54 PM)

quote:

I didn’t distort your 'thoughts', I addressed your logic, which is atrocious.

As evolution is not nearly as well established, nor powerfully explanatory, nor straight forward, nor criticial to daily operations as germ theory is, your conclusion is not warranted.

Indeed, your example brings this sharply into focus; as germ theory sufficiently provides a robust explanation for the phenomena it describes, there is really no room nor reason for an alternative explanation; if evolution did the same, it would not need atheists to rally around it.


Yes. I'm the one with atrocious logic. The man who says that the only reason that evolution is so popular is because atheists are propping it up is calling me illogical. Oh, ignoring the fact that atheists make up, what less than ten percent of the population, compared to the seventy-some-odd percent of Christians in the country. Yes. There's some kind of evil conspiracy afoot.

Evolution is just as "well established" as the Germ Theory. I don't know what you meant by the subjective term "well established," but considering that Darwin formulated the theory a good twenty years before John Snow established the formative basis of the Germ Theory, I would argue that the Darwinian Theory is "more established." "Powerfully explanatory" is another one of those subjective terms that I could refute just by saying "I disagree." And "straight-forward?" Organisms mutate. The mutated organisms that aren't well-adjusted die, and the mutants that are well-adapted create well-adapted offspring. Eventually, with enough mutations, a species breaks into another species. It's straight-forward to me. And don't give me that "not essential to daily operations" nonsense. Just because something isn't neccesary on a day-to-day basis doesn't mean that it's less valuable. By your logic, pure mathematics and literature are irrelevant for people to learn, because they don't help us on a day-to-day basis. Please.

Besides, the only reason that the Germ Theory isn't criticized by the religiously blind is because it doesn't stray into killing your sacred cows. If you'd take a look, evolution has just as much proof as the Germ Theory-- but since the Darwinian Theory *dares* to take away what, one of the last remaining neccesities of a god, it has to be wrong. Evolution stands perfectly well, whether the person advocating it is a christian, an atheist, or otherwise. Atheists, however, are more inclined to believe it since we aren't fettered by the raving diktat of a three-thousand year old pounding of the sand, and have no reason not to see it as anything but logical.

quote:

Well, good then, we agree; as ID doesn’t attempt to “observe, measured, or quantify” God, it is perfectly viable as a scientific notion.


Don't split hairs with me, you disingenuous luddite. "Intelligent Design" works on the assumption that an "intelligent designer" created life, the universe, and everything. An "intelligent designer" is synonymous with a god, which is apparent to everybody from the Supreme Court down to a biology teacher. If it were a truly scientific notion, "Intelligent Design" would give some example as to *why* an "intelligent designer" is neccesary for life to begin, quantify their "intelligent designer" before they used it in arguments, and give an example as to its presence in the evolutionary process.

quote:

Try hard to actually answer the questions.

As neither theory is experimentally validated, would you oppose the discussion of these theories in a classroom until they were?


I was mentioning that your question was improperly and deceitfully phrased. You were trying to imply that these theories are lies right off the bat, and that their presence in the classroom would be some kind of wrong that would need to be corrected with "Intelligent Design" in the classroom. To repeat what I said, string theory is untested and it would be improper to discuss it in a class dedicated to tested theories. And abiogenesis is a theory that works well with what we've observed and deserves to be discussed in a biology class.

quote:

Presumably their members pay taxes as well. Shall I let you know where to send your financial contribution?


No, you can just get my tax money from Bush's White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives. I'm sure they'd be willing to hurl it at crackpots and their conspiracies.



Jhud -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 6:00:46 PM)

quote:

Yes. I'm the one with atrocious logic. The man who says that the only reason that evolution is so popular is because atheists are propping it up is calling me illogical.


Not only illogical, but a bad reader as well. I never said anything about evolution’s ‘popularity’.

quote:

Oh, ignoring the fact that atheists make up, what less than ten percent of the population, compared to the seventy-some-odd percent of Christians in the country. Yes. There's some kind of evil conspiracy afoot.


But a surpisingly large portion of evolutionary biologists. Why do you suppose that is?

quote:

Evolution is just as "well established" as the Germ Theory.


Well, no – there is a relatively straight forward experiment we can all do to establish germ theory – no such thing for evolution. And as you are making abundantly clear, evolution isn’t really one thing, but rather a collection of vague things.

quote:

I don't know what you meant by the subjective term "well established," but considering that Darwin formulated the theory a good twenty years before John Snow established the formative basis of the Germ Theory, I would argue that the Darwinian Theory is "more established." "Powerfully explanatory" is another one of those subjective terms that I could refute just by saying "I disagree." And "straight-forward?" Organisms mutate. The mutated organisms that aren't well-adjusted die, and the mutants that are well-adapted create well-adapted offspring. Eventually, with enough mutations, a species breaks into another species. It's straight-forward to me.


Yeah, if you leave out the development of novel body plans, organs, and complex, interdependent structures. But of course, that would make evolution look bad, so, shhhh…

quote:

And don't give me that "not essential to daily operations" nonsense. Just because something isn't neccesary on a day-to-day basis doesn't mean that it's less valuable. By your logic, pure mathematics and literature are irrelevant for people to learn, because they don't help us on a day-to-day basis. Please.


I use pure mathematics and I read everyday, as do most people I know; I think that rather proves my point.

quote:

Besides, the only reason that the Germ Theory isn't criticized by the religiously blind is because it doesn't stray into killing your sacred cows. If you'd take a look, evolution has just as much proof as the Germ Theory-- but since the Darwinian Theory *dares* to take away what, one of the last remaining neccesities of a god, it has to be wrong. Evolution stands perfectly well, whether the person advocating it is a christian, an atheist, or otherwise. Atheists, however, are more inclined to believe it since we aren't fettered by the raving diktat of a three-thousand year old pounding of the sand, and have no reason not to see it as anything but logical.


Well, at least you admit the theological implications of evolution – most evolutionists around here try to keep that on the low down.

quote:

Don't split hairs with me, you disingenuous luddite. "Intelligent Design" works on the assumption that an "intelligent designer" created life, the universe, and everything. An "intelligent designer" is synonymous with a god, which is apparent to everybody from the Supreme Court down to a biology teacher. If it were a truly scientific notion, "Intelligent Design" would give some example as to *why* an "intelligent designer" is neccesary for life to begin, quantify their "intelligent designer" before they used it in arguments, and give an example as to its presence in the evolutionary process.


Wow, getting a little testy there aren’t we? By the way, I consider luddite a compliment, in keeping with my Wendell Berry-esque view of life.

Where were we? Oh yes – feel free to make sweeping statements about what intelligent design assumes – none of that denies the fact that intelligence is necessary for the formation of complex interdependent information driven nano-machinery, and no blustering by an evolutionist has ever proven otherwise.

And in keeping with that, I expect no actual evidence to the contrary from you.

quote:

I was mentioning that your question was improperly and deceitfully phrased. You were trying to imply that these theories are lies right off the bat, and that their presence in the classroom would be some kind of wrong that would need to be corrected with "Intelligent Design" in the classroom. To repeat what I said, string theory is untested and it would be improper to discuss it in a class dedicated to tested theories. And abiogenesis is a theory that works well with what we've observed and deserves to be discussed in a biology class.


So if we think it ‘works well’ we can discuss it in class whether or not we have any experimentation or observation to verify it, but if it is ‘untested’ (which is clearly a different case) we shouldn’t discuss it in class.

This bodes well for your candidacy as Science Pope – your ability to make confident unfounded proclamations should give you a lot of votes in the Holy (sorry – Secular) College.

quote:

No, you can just get my tax money from Bush's White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives. I'm sure they'd be willing to hurl it at crackpots and their conspiracies.


That’s where you get your salary…



DanJames -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 6:25:36 PM)

Sartrian, you should probably read some of the more scientific threads in this section of the forum to get an understanding of how much we've actually discussed the science of intelligent design. It's not just a matter of "life is too complex" like seems to be popularized in today's media. Oh, and name calling serves in no way to progress the topic at hand. You may disagree sharply with Jhud's views, but take a lesson from drj11, who disagrees with him more than anyone else on this site, yet has managed to remain a gentlemen.



Sartrian -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 6:37:34 PM)

quote:

I already refuted this.


If I recall, you said I was wrong, then asked me some inane question about molecular evolution. It's interesting what passes for refutation in Cloudcuckooland.

quote:

See above


Nothing but you repeating the word "historical." Uhhh...no? I'd like to see you take human genes and make them have different results on different DNA tests. Otherwise...

quote:

Read my post refuting your interpretations of this.


Where? I never saw anything close to a refutation of what I said. Saying I'm wrong doesn't make it so. Sorry. Try again.

quote:

ROFLOL. ipso facto, by method of you proclaiming it. Read my post refuting it and expose students to my refutations. Let them decide.


ROFLOL. By method of basic biology. That's what "reproduction" is for. I'm obviously arguing with either somebody who failed high school biology or a thirteen year old.

quote:

Because only your interpretation stands.


No, because the alternative boils down to ignorant voodoo that was accepted in the Dark Ages.

quote:

Are you going to read my refutations or are you going to keep plugging your ears saying, "you're wrong, you're wrong."


The only thing you've said to me is that I'm wrong and that evolution is "historical." Let me repeat myself. You can't falsify genes. If you can't falsify genes, then they must be telling you an objective truth. We share genes with every living thing on earth, from plants to bacteria. If genes can only be spread through reproduction, we must have a common ancestor with bacteria. What can be the common ancestor of bacteria? Something simpler than bacteria.

quote:

Depends on how you define "living." The point is that in nature they depend on already existing organisms and if those organisms didn't exist before these replicators, you have no evidence suggesting that these replicators would exist.


If a virus or prion, being non-alive (having cells, homeostasis, and reproducing independently are good indicators of life-- viruses and prions have none) can exist, that means that it's plausible that our most common ancestor was functional in a similar way-- a chain of reproducing proteins that managed to form an information chain, which was most likely RNA. I never said that these hypothetical protein reproducers would function the exact same way as prions or viruses.

quote:

Science welcomes academic freedom. Evolution is anti - scientific because it censors academic freedom.


That's right. That's why those nasty evilutionists aren't invited to the really nice scientist parties.

quote:

Again, in nature it occurs within extant organisms.


Again, for the umpteenth time, I'm not saying that the hypothetical common ancestor had to function the same way as a virus. I'm just saying that a protein agent evolving is possible.

quote:

If you assume evolution.


Evolution is a fact. The Darwinian Theory of Evolution explains it. There's no assumption involved. If you disagree, I'd like to point you towards exhibit A-- the evolution of the Peppered Moth in response to industrial pollution, exhibit B-- the Flavobacterium that evolved factors capable of digesting nylon, and exhibit C-- the fact that penicillin, a wonder drug at the turn of the century, has become useless towards nearly all disease, due to the fact that bacteria have evolved ways to deal with penicillin.

quote:

Assuming evolution is true.


Your approval is not neccesary. Sorry.

quote:

In nature, they exist within existing organisms.


Thanks for ignoring my qualification of my post. But then, that only lends credence to the idea that you're thirteen.

quote:

Depends on how you define "living" but the point is that they don't exist in nature outside of existing organisms and you have no evidence suggesting that they arise in nature independently of already existing organisms.


The fact that you'd even contest the common grounds of "living" shows how disingenuous you really are. Here's the commonality-- Homeostasis, independent reproduction, response to stimuli, adaptation, growth, organization of cells, and metabolism. Viruses can only have three of those factors independently, which discounts them being "alive." But the three they do have--response to stimuli, adaptation, and growth are shared with all organisms. It's plausible, then, that an ancient protein chain similar to a virus, living in a time of nearly zero oxygen in the atmosphere would have been capable of independent existence and the evolution of what we consider life.

quote:

They don't reinforce UCD.


Again, if you don't have any sort of evidence to refute my assertions, you end up more or less saying, "Nuh-uh, you're wrong." I.E.: a non-argument.

quote:

They fit within your interpretation. Let students be exposed to both sides and let them decide.


I guess this is how ID nuts win their arguments-- they repeat their non-arguments until they wear down their opponents into laughing themselves to death.

quote:

Did you read my post that I linked to?


I don't read appeals to authority. Give me an argument on your terms, or don't give me anything at all.

quote:

Yes I did. Read the posts I linked to.


Denial's not just a river in Egypt, if you'll forgive my use of old aphorisms.

quote:

Again, your alleged interpretations of the evidence have been refuted. Expose those refutations to students and you are free to criticize them.


"Nuh-uh! Evolution is for stupidheads! My mommy told me that Jesus made the dinosaurs!"

quote:

We have never observed UCD. No one has ever observed a molecule evolve into a man, so it is something you are claiming happened in the past.


Well, excuse my abruptness, but duh. We've never observed our common ancestor because it was millions of years ago at least. If you want to look at one of your ancestors, go to the Cleveland Museum of Natural History and take a peek at the cast of the "Lucy" skeleton. And no one ever observed Mt. Everest being formed. Would you deny that the Theory of Plate Tectonics does an adequate job explaining how it came to be?

quote:

Even if true, millions of years is not falsifiable and hence unscientific.


You don't even know what's meant when the term "falsifiable" is used in science, do you? My god, you really are a thirteen year old.

quote:

Just because you label it ignorant doesn't mean its so. Also, scientists are no less bias than anyone else, they are people too.


Yeah, except they follow the scientific method-- which is designed to take the bias out of scientific work. Oops.

quote:

So why is evolution passed off as truth at the expense of tax dollars and truth when its not true? Who are you to decide what is true over anyone else and dictate that students should be brainwashed with your opinions of truth while censoring all criticisms and opposing views.


You know why evolution is passed off as truth? Because penicillin doesn't work any more. And it turns out that the only thing that could be used to explain that is the Darwinian Theory of Evolution. What, exactly, has "Intelligent Design" explained? Give me one good example. Please. I beg of you.

quote:

Restricting academic freedom to promote the atheistic religion at the expense of tax dollars is dishonest.


"Atheistic religion?" Yeah. The same way bald is a hair color. And I hate to inform you, but science is wholly secular. If god decided to make a magic appearance one day, scientists wouldn't say, "Oh, well, you don't exist." They'd study him and his actions in the same way they'd study anything else. But alas, god's never made an appearance, and everything he's supposedly ever done can be explained away as historical bias, outright lies, or a misunderstanding of science. Oops.

quote:

Even if true, they don't have to label it "science."


What don't they have to label "science?" Theology? Because if so, I agree with you on that.

quote:

Have you even read my link?


Have you even made an argument that doesn't rely on appeals to authority and empty criticisms of my assertions?

quote:

Science encourages academic freedom and open inquiry, evolution can't withstand criticism so it censors what science encourages. Evolution is anti - scientific.


Should I pull out the world's smallest violin and a phone number to a conspiracy hotline?

quote:

Where did Darwin say a rabbit in the precambrian layer would falsify UCD?


A rabbit in the Precambrian layer would devastate the Darwinian Theory of Evolution, and add new complexity to the mystery of the common ancestor (I'm sure it'll come aaaaaany day now).

quote:

Darwin himself acknowledged that he got much of his ideas from a creationist in his book.


Find quotes, or you're spreading propaganda.

quote:

The fact that its true makes it true.


Well, when you get to Venus, send me a post card.

quote:

It doesn't?


"Noep." It only served as a device for you to obfuscate this conversation-- mostly by distracting me from the fact that you had absolutely no arguments.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 6:37:43 PM)

Not to mention, personal attacks will probably (eventually) get you banned from here.



Sartrian -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 7:15:59 PM)

quote:

Not only illogical, but a bad reader as well. I never said anything about evolution’s ‘popularity’.


"...if evolution did the same, it would not need atheists to rally around it."

Please. Split more hairs. That really makes your argument so much more impressive.

quote:

But a surpisingly large portion of evolutionary biologists. Why do you suppose that is?


Because logic is like a good vaccination shot.

quote:

Well, no – there is a relatively straight forward experiment we can all do to establish germ theory – no such thing for evolution. And as you are making abundantly clear, evolution isn’t really one thing, but rather a collection of vague things.


First off, you could prove evolution through test if you so chose. Take a bunch of foxes (like a Russian biology group did in the early sixties) and control the way they breed, attempting to domesticate them. After several groups of controlled offspring, you will note that the foxes (as the Russian group found) lost their smell, became friendly with humans, vocalized in a way unusual for foxes, developed elongated skulls, and developed lower adreneline production. These would be a collection of genetic mutations that had built up due to your directed implementation of survival of the fittest, and if continued long enough, would cause the "tame foxes" to become a species seperate from the Silver fox.

quote:

Yeah, if you leave out the development of novel body plans, organs, and complex, interdependent structures. But of course, that would make evolution look bad, so, shhhh…


Your glibness belies your obvious brilliance. The simplest answer is that the complex systems happened over time. Hence the "millions of years." The small mutations built up so much that species differentiated, organ systems were formed, and adaptation occured. It's not rocket science. The dog experiment shows how it's easily possible.

quote:

I use pure mathematics and I read everyday, as do most people I know; I think that rather proves my point.


Saying that the Darwinian Theory of Evolution is silly because of its complexity shows just how much that reading did for you. Apparently, if something in nature requires more than ten seconds of thought, it's either ridiculous or "goddidit."

quote:

Well, at least you admit the theological implications of evolution – most evolutionists around here try to keep that on the low down.


At least you admitted that you're completely and hopelessly biased. Besides, evolution and the Darwinian Theory of Evolution are wholly secular. If you want to believe in god, fine. More power to you. First Amendment's great for that. But when you attempt to insert your biases into objective science, you don't prove anything except your own flawed logic by calling the offending idea "anti-whatever-you-are."

quote:

Wow, getting a little testy there aren’t we? By the way, I consider luddite a compliment, in keeping with my Wendell Berry-esque view of life.


Unfortunately, we here in the twenty-first century tend to view our progress as a good thing. What with microwaves, vaccinations, the internet, pacemakers, liberal democracies, et cetera, et cetera.

quote:

Where were we? Oh yes – feel free to make sweeping statements about what intelligent design assumes – none of that denies the fact that intelligence is necessary for the formation of complex interdependent information driven nano-machinery, and no blustering by an evolutionist has ever proven otherwise.


What does nano-machinery have to do with the price of tea in China? Please stay on topic, unless you realize that all of your arguments are utterly pointless, and are changing the subject to avoid having to continue it.

quote:

And in keeping with that, I expect no actual evidence to the contrary from you.


What, exactly, am I supposed to speak against? That complex nano-machines are made by people? Good for you. Show me where things in the natural world require an intelligence to run. I don't see god coming out of his heaven every afternoon to put fuel in horses.



Sartrian -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 7:21:44 PM)

quote:

So if we think it ‘works well’ we can discuss it in class whether or not we have any experimentation or observation to verify it, but if it is ‘untested’ (which is clearly a different case) we shouldn’t discuss it in class.


If you'd like to see my discussion on the validity of abiogenesis, please see my earlier comments. I'm tired of repeating myself ad nauseum for you and your ilk.

quote:

This bodes well for your candidacy as Science Pope – your ability to make confident unfounded proclamations should give you a lot of votes in the Holy (sorry – Secular) College.


Good. My first bull ex officio would be to finally send you all to Saudi Arabia, where the religious ignorance flows like milk and honey.

quote:

That’s where you get your salary…


Ooh, aren't we clever! Maybe next you'll tell me that I have a rubber butt, or some comment me being an ickyface. I would deserve it, after all. I'm such an evil gay atheist liberal demon worshipper. Watch out! I'm coming to steal Christmas and step on the Easter eggs.



Sartrian -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 7:23:39 PM)

quote:

Not to mention, personal attacks will probably (eventually) get you banned from here.


I do what I must out of love for all humanity.



DanJames -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 7:30:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sartrian

quote:

Not to mention, personal attacks will probably (eventually) get you banned from here.


I do what I must out of love for all humanity.


And what you've been doing is wading in the shallow end of the pool of arguments shouting rude and abnoxious comments. If you were wanting to rock the boat, you could have done it with well thought out criticisms of ID. As it is, you haven't presented any. Please take the time to sit back with a hot cup of coffee and read these threads. It'll give you an idea of the substance of our discussions.
Regulating Evolution
Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria
Two-legged serpent fossil
Stasis as criticism of evolution



Sartrian -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 7:42:20 PM)

quote:

And what you've been doing is wading in the shallow end of the pool of arguments shouting rude and abnoxious comments.


Actually, I've been hurling evidence of evolution wildly, without anybody responding to me except one thirteen year old who thinks that contradicting me means saying "In your opinion," and Jhud, who I can at least respect for coming up with new ways to try and refute me. AND I've been shouting rude and obnoxious comments. But only because I hate willful ignorance so much, and really hate it when people try and convince me with either repetition of nonsense, or willful ignorance of the opposing side of an argument. But hey.

quote:

If you were wanting to rock the boat, you could have done it with well thought out criticisms of ID.


Uh huh. And the fact that nobody's been able to really refute anything I say. If you think you can sway me, please try. I do enjoy a good meeting of the minds.

quote:

As it is, you haven't presented any.


Are you falling into the willfully ignorant camp yourself? I've been posting like a madman. I'll repost my comments just for you:

"Evolution is a fact. The Darwinian Theory of Evolution explains it. There's no assumption involved. If you disagree, I'd like to point you towards exhibit A-- the evolution of the Peppered Moth in response to industrial pollution, exhibit B-- the Flavobacterium that evolved factors capable of digesting nylon, and exhibit C-- the fact that penicillin, a wonder drug at the turn of the century, has become useless towards nearly all disease, due to the fact that bacteria have evolved ways to deal with penicillin."

"First off, you could prove evolution through test if you so chose. Take a bunch of foxes (like a Russian biology group did in the early sixties) and control the way they breed, attempting to domesticate them. After several groups of controlled offspring, you will note that the foxes (as the Russian group found) lost their smell, became friendly with humans, vocalized in a way unusual for foxes, developed elongated skulls, and developed lower adreneline production. These would be a collection of genetic mutations that had built up due to your directed implementation of survival of the fittest, and if continued long enough, would cause the "tame foxes" to become a species seperate from the Silver fox."

"Every organism on Earth-- bacteria, grass, roundworms, fish, humans-- shares genes. This conclusively shows that all lifeforms descended from a common ancestor. And what common ancestor could we share with bacteria? What could be simpler than a single-celled organism? Well, viruses and prions are incredibly simple, replicating agents that skirt the line between "life" and "unliving." It's also been shown that viruses evolve, which is good evidence that a non-living, replicating protein cluster could have led to the formation of DNA and by association, all life on Earth."

"Besides, evolution is completely rational for one simple reason (that I keep repeating, BTW). All life forms on Earth share genes. Such an occurrence would only be possible if all life forms sprung from a common ancestry. That ancestry would have to be an agent simpler than even bacteria. Things like viruses and prions show us that a non-living protein replicator is possible, and backs up the idea that we sprung from a common, abiogenetic ancestor."

quote:

Please take the time to sit back with a hot cup of coffee and read these threads. It'll give you an idea of the substance of our discussions.


I'd rather you try to refute my examples yourself, rather than telling me to go elsewhere.



essentialsaltes -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 7:56:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

Who's gonna pack the theater on April 18th?!


Box office numbers are out. Expelled made $3.2M putting it in 9th place. Not bad for a documentary.



essentialsaltes -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 8:05:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

Who's gonna pack the theater on April 18th?!


Box office numbers are out. Expelled made $3.2M putting it in 9th place. Not bad for a documentary.


More data on top-grossing documentaries here. Still more data here. Expelled has the third highest opening weekend total, but opened in the most theaters of anything on the list. Expelled is already the 30th best-grossing doc of all time on that list. Given my vast experience in the movie biz, I predict it'll break into the top ten, winding up with about $10M.



DanJames -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 9:20:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

Who's gonna pack the theater on April 18th?!


Box office numbers are out. Expelled made $3.2M putting it in 9th place. Not bad for a documentary.


More data on top-grossing documentaries here. Still more data here. Expelled has the third highest opening weekend total, but opened in the most theaters of anything on the list. Expelled is already the 30th best-grossing doc of all time on that list. Given my vast experience in the movie biz, I predict it'll break into the top ten, winding up with about $10M.


Thanks for the update, ES!!



DanJames -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 9:27:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sartrian

quote:

If you were wanting to rock the boat, you could have done it with well thought out criticisms of ID.


Uh huh. And the fact that nobody's been able to really refute anything I say. If you think you can sway me, please try. I do enjoy a good meeting of the minds.


Then allow me to help you. Start a new thread that presents ONE topic and one topic alone. Your best shot. We will join you in that thread and we'll duke it out like gentlemen. Or if you like, post a comment on a thread that discusses a related topic. As it is, this thread is for discussing the documentary, Expelled. Feel free to contribute to that discussion.

quote:



Are you falling into the willfully ignorant camp yourself? I've been posting like a madman. I'll repost my comments just for you:

"Evolution is a fact. The Darwinian Theory of Evolution explains it. There's no assumption involved...
...a non-living protein replicator is possible, and backs up the idea that we sprung from a common, abiogenetic ancestor."


You will find by reading the threads that I posted that these truly are in the shallow end of the argument pool. But, please feel free to start a new thread, and we'll discuss these arguments one topic at a time.



Sartrian -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 9:38:49 PM)

quote:

Then allow me to help you. Start a new thread that presents ONE topic and one topic alone. Your best shot. We will join you in that thread and we'll duke it out like gentlemen. Or if you like, post a comment on a thread that discusses a related topic. As it is, this thread is for discussing the documentary, Expelled. Feel free to contribute to that discussion.


Well, considering that this thread is about a piece of propaganda, and it's already degenerated into a knock-down-drag-out fight between evolution and "Intelligent Design," I feel comfortable where I am. If you don't feel like making any comments here, I certainly don't feel like moving.

quote:

You will find by reading the threads that I posted that these truly are in the shallow end of the argument pool. But, please feel free to start a new thread, and we'll discuss these arguments one topic at a time.


Ooh. Patronizing. Refute them here, if they're so simple. You should be able to outrun my pathetic atheist brain in a matter of lines.



DanJames -> RE: EXPELLED (4/21/2008 9:49:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sartrian

quote:

Then allow me to help you. Start a new thread that presents ONE topic and one topic alone. Your best shot. We will join you in that thread and we'll duke it out like gentlemen. Or if you like, post a comment on a thread that discusses a related topic. As it is, this thread is for discussing the documentary, Expelled. Feel free to contribute to that discussion.


Well, considering that this thread is about a piece of propaganda, and it's already degenerated into a knock-down-drag-out fight between evolution and "Intelligent Design," I feel comfortable where I am. If you don't feel like making any comments here, I certainly don't feel like moving.

And it will only get further off topic if we start discussing the topics you've posted. Forgive me for not keeping the thread that I posted on topic, but it's just the way that they can go sometimes.

quote:


Ooh. Patronizing. Refute them here, if they're so simple. You should be able to outrun my pathetic atheist brain in a matter of lines.

They aren't simple, but they are a mile wide and an inch deep. We've discussed genetics in much more detail than you've presented in your question. Just see Documented evolution of new functions and behaviors in bacteria . My comment is not meant to be patronizing, it's meant to inform you that as a new member of this forum, there is a history of posts with which you may not be familiar. I'm not going to discuss this topic on this thread any more. If you aren't familiar with how to start a new thread, just let me know and I'll start one up for you. Just give me the subject or something to copy and paste, and I'll start one.



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI