But none of that is really relevant given that I'm jewish. For that alone, I'm going to hell according to you and your faith and there's not a damn thing I can do it about other than declare jesus my lord and savior.
Please refute this article with science. Thanks. Molecular biology - ( New Window )
Please present science - not an article from some fucking Christian website called "Abounding Joy".
Spock, you were much more interesting when you were trying to figure out why god made someone in your house a porn hound...
Rob, all you had to say was simply- I can't refute it Spock. Maybe bill2 can, but not me.
It's not incumbent upon me to refute every fucking lie you link to, you anti-Semitic piece of shit. I could do the same thing, and link to sites that state that Jesus was buggering Mary Magdelene. thirty three years is a long time without dipping the old wick.
Its taught in some high school bio classes to "dumb down" the subject matter to students, to make it easily digestible and allow things to be viewed on a "scale". It was coined in the 1920s by a Russian scientist (Filipchenko), but the reality is that there is no dividing line between the two concepts. Anyone with an advance degree in Biology will not use the terms and mentioning them is an easy way to tell that someone is in a high school bio class and anxious to discuss what they've studied or trying to apply concepts they don't understand to put forward an agenda.
That said, its the go to defense for Creationist - although its good to know the popular term is now "Bacteria to Boyscout" and no longer "Dogs never become cats".
You sure? Since evolution fails as even "Scientific" or a "Theory" as previously addressed..and can't come close to even "ONE" Functional DNA/RNA/Protein spontaneously polymerizing "Naturally" outside an Already existing Cell--- just the (Hardware), without even speaking to INFORMATION/Software ---The CODE. Let's see what you got:
Please explain one microscopic aspect of the "evolution" of Prokaryotes to Eukaryotes, please reconcile...
In Eukaryote's, transport of mRNA from the nucleus to the cytoplasm is coupled to splicing and does not occur until all the splicing is complete (and additional modifications, See below). How does mRNA enter the cytoplasm for translation during the evolution of the splicing mechanism? Magic?
Moreover, How did Stupid Atoms "figure out" the need for the 5 Prime Cap on Pre-mRNA so that it wouldn't be degraded as soon as it was polymerized? Prokaryotes don't do this! Did the Stupid Atoms "Learn" it by trial and error? Then they must have "learned" that "we" (Stupid Atoms) have to protect the other end when it is finished with a 3 Prime "polyA Tail" so RNase's can't have a RNA dinner. Why put a "tail" on that end that is Chemically different from The Tri-phosphate Bridge (5 Prime Cap)? If these Specific "Caps and Tails" aren't added, (AND, the entire Splicing Process Completed, which would make Einstein Blush), mRNA cannot traverse the Gauntlet into the Cytoplasm------Ergo, No Protein-ee;....No Life-ee.
Without the 5 Prime Cap/polyA tail/ and Splicing.... which allows it to transverse the Nuclear Envelope, the "yet to be assembled" Ribosome (In the Cytoplasm)...is a Football Bat; Translation will not occur without the 5 Prime Cap. (And where did you get the Ribosome, since it takes mRNA and the entire process above to make the Ribosome??). That's quite a fortuitous set of Mind Boggling sequence of events to get everything on the same page; That is...some serious Conflict Resolution Programming for Blind Stupid Atoms with two completely separate processes (about 50 sub-processes), that would make Einstein Blush, in two completely different locations. You think they can whip up a Western Omelet without any eggs? Maybe it was "evolution"? Maybe the "Magical" yet to be assembled Ribosome hung out for a billion years "in Soup" synthesizing "Functional Proteins" from Silicates until the request and approval were ratified? Who was the Arbitrator...Natural Selection?
Define Preposterous Ludicrous Absurdity?
But he accomplishes his purpose of impressing those like Spock who have no clue of what he is saying. Not sure Enoch has any clue of the bits and pieces he has put together from various websites. Has he told us we what specific degrees he has?
I have to leave all this fun pretty soon, but before I leave I really am open to receive a scientific rebuttal from the point being made from this article I have posted twice. The argument being made seems conclusive enough to me, but I want to see where you think it is in error.
You guys keep telling me I'm scientifically challenged and closed minded, so here I am, opening myself up to receive your good word of instruction. (I even asked Enoch but he must have missed it too. )
Its taught in some high school bio classes to "dumb down" the subject matter to students, to make it easily digestible and allow things to be viewed on a "scale". It was coined in the 1920s by a Russian scientist (Filipchenko), but the reality is that there is no dividing line between the two concepts. Anyone with an advance degree in Biology will not use the terms and mentioning them is an easy way to tell that someone is in a high school bio class and anxious to discuss what they've studied or trying to apply concepts they don't understand to put forward an agenda.
That said, its the go to defense for Creationist - although its good to know the popular term is now "Bacteria to Boyscout" and no longer "Dogs never become cats".
You sure? Since evolution fails as even "Scientific" or a "Theory" as previously addressed..and can't come close to even "ONE" Functional DNA/RNA/Protein spontaneously polymerizing "Naturally" outside an Already existing Cell--- just the (Hardware), without even speaking to INFORMATION/Software ---The CODE. Let's see what you got:
Please explain one microscopic aspect of the "evolution" of Prokaryotes to Eukaryotes, please reconcile...
In Eukaryote's, transport of mRNA from the nucleus to the cytoplasm is coupled to splicing and does not occur until all the splicing is complete (and additional modifications, See below). How does mRNA enter the cytoplasm for translation during the evolution of the splicing mechanism? Magic?
Moreover, How did Stupid Atoms "figure out" the need for the 5 Prime Cap on Pre-mRNA so that it wouldn't be degraded as soon as it was polymerized? Prokaryotes don't do this! Did the Stupid Atoms "Learn" it by trial and error? Then they must have "learned" that "we" (Stupid Atoms) have to protect the other end when it is finished with a 3 Prime "polyA Tail" so RNase's can't have a RNA dinner. Why put a "tail" on that end that is Chemically different from The Tri-phosphate Bridge (5 Prime Cap)? If these Specific "Caps and Tails" aren't added, (AND, the entire Splicing Process Completed, which would make Einstein Blush), mRNA cannot traverse the Gauntlet into the Cytoplasm------Ergo, No Protein-ee;....No Life-ee.
Without the 5 Prime Cap/polyA tail/ and Splicing.... which allows it to transverse the Nuclear Envelope, the "yet to be assembled" Ribosome (In the Cytoplasm)...is a Football Bat; Translation will not occur without the 5 Prime Cap. (And where did you get the Ribosome, since it takes mRNA and the entire process above to make the Ribosome??). That's quite a fortuitous set of Mind Boggling sequence of events to get everything on the same page; That is...some serious Conflict Resolution Programming for Blind Stupid Atoms with two completely separate processes (about 50 sub-processes), that would make Einstein Blush, in two completely different locations. You think they can whip up a Western Omelet without any eggs? Maybe it was "evolution"? Maybe the "Magical" yet to be assembled Ribosome hung out for a billion years "in Soup" synthesizing "Functional Proteins" from Silicates until the request and approval were ratified? Who was the Arbitrator...Natural Selection?
Define Preposterous Ludicrous Absurdity?
regards
I assume now is the time I go into a long discussion of Giardia Lamblia, only for it to be refuted by a long string of well placed buzzwords and a reshuffling of the playing deck.
So I'm going Charlie Kelly here and playing a Wild Card - Nitro nailed it, its Jesus' magic pixie dust.
and part of me thinks that spock also participates in a circlejerk of dumbasses elsewhere and he called upon reinforcements here, as this crusader felt the Noblesse oblige to aid him in this worthy endeavor.
It's a real seesaw to figure out who's more pathetic.
Is this debate... There is a god and you can't prove that I am wrong, so I am right?
Or
Is this debate... There is no such thing as evolution because you can't prove it scientifically, thus god did it?
Or
Is this debate... There is no god because unproven science says so?
It's this one: "There is no such thing as evolution because you can't prove it scientifically, thus god did it?"
George Wald Nobel Laureate Medicine and Physiology...
“The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. …Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.” {Emphasis Mine}
Wald, G., “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191 [2]: 45-46, 1954.
Or, show how...
1. Stupid Atoms Wrote There Own Software...i.e., Ink/Paper/Graphite/Glue Molecules authoring War and Peace?
2. The Universe Created Itself....from Nothing; In a 1LOT context?
3. Stars/Planets coalesced (Nebular Hypothesis)...in a 2LOT, Boyle's Gas Law, Jeans Mass, and the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum context.
For Starters.
Not only can you NOT prove evolution "Scientifically"...it's tenets take to the Woodshed and Bludgeon Senseless:
1. Laws of Thermodynamics "Pillars of Science".
2. Jeans Mass
3. Boyle's Gas Law
4. The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum
5. Law of Biogenesis
6. Laws of Information
7. Laws of Chemistry/Biochemistry
8. Functional Sequence Complexity
9. Irreducible Complexity
10. Quantum Mechanics
11. Laws of Logic
12. Common Sense
and part of me thinks that spock also participates in a circlejerk of dumbasses elsewhere and he called upon reinforcements here, as this crusader felt the Noblesse oblige to aid him in this worthy endeavor.
It's a real seesaw to figure out who's more pathetic.
I agree that what you propose is a possibility, but it's just too coincidental that spock was getting his ass kicked and good old Enoch suddenly appeared.
So, I very strongly believe this is spock, who has a history of bannings and handle changes, randomly selecting supposed refutations from creationist sites. The fact that there is no internal organization or rigor in Enoch's posts point straight at spock's years of hypocrisy on here.
Ergo, spock and enoch are one and the same. The really sad part of all this is that supposedly spock has children (created without sex, of course) and has turned them into little morons who had no chance from the start.
A very good candidate for a child abuse charge if I ever saw one.
Is this debate... There is a god and you can't prove that I am wrong, so I am right?
Or
Is this debate... There is no such thing as evolution because you can't prove it scientifically, thus god did it?
Or
Is this debate... There is no god because unproven science says so?
It's this one: "There is no such thing as evolution because you can't prove it scientifically, thus god did it?"
George Wald Nobel Laureate Medicine and Physiology...
“The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. …Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.” {Emphasis Mine}
Wald, G., “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191 [2]: 45-46, 1954.
Or, show how...
1. Stupid Atoms Wrote There Own Software...i.e., Ink/Paper/Graphite/Glue Molecules authoring War and Peace?
2. The Universe Created Itself....from Nothing; In a 1LOT context?
3. Stars/Planets coalesced (Nebular Hypothesis)...in a 2LOT, Boyle's Gas Law, Jeans Mass, and the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum context.
For Starters.
Not only can you NOT prove evolution "Scientifically"...it's tenets take to the Woodshed and Bludgeon Senseless:
1. Laws of Thermodynamics "Pillars of Science".
2. Jeans Mass
3. Boyle's Gas Law
4. The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum
5. Law of Biogenesis
6. Laws of Information
7. Laws of Chemistry/Biochemistry
8. Functional Sequence Complexity
9. Irreducible Complexity
10. Quantum Mechanics
11. Laws of Logic
12. Common Sense
regards
Does anyone here have a clue what this guy is babbling about?
Is there any doubt what Rocky would be doing if he lived in Pakistan? Probably still a teacher, but instead of undermining science, he would be teaching his students (like Enoch) how to conceal a bomb vest.
Hard to say which one damages humanity more in the long-term....
All you have is name calling and dragging through the mud anyone that doesn't agree with your Fairytale Ideology without @ least a semblance of a cogent well thought out argument in defense.
This isn't Rocket Science; if you can't square "Nature" writing Algorithmic Cybernetic Coding and Decoding Schemes (SEE: DNA----"CODE") ....which is Ludicrous Absurdity, what's left??
(Isaiah 1:18) "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."
His yoke is easy and burden is light...It's Absolutely Free, Paid In Full!! His Name is Jesus Christ...and He Loves You.
how do you think it is that with thousands of peer-reviewed articles in the most prestigious science journals on the topic of evolution:
1) Not a single one has successfully falsified the analysis confirming macroevolution; and
2) Not a single one has confirmed ID as an alternate hypothesis?
Are you suggesting that the most brilliant scientific minds in the world, mostly post-docs in biology, biochemistry, evolution, genetics and on and on and on are either stupid or involved in a scam? What is your hypothesis?
And as far as confirming a theory without experimentation, lets take a couple of examples that would appear to confirm evolution. Take some statements related to evolution, such as in the TalkOrigins piece I linked numerous times, and lets see how one would test them without experimentation. How would one do that? BY PREDICTIING WHAT UNKNOWN DATA WILL LOOK LIKE WHEN FOUND, AND SEEING WHETHER OR NOT IT CONFIRMS THE HYPOTHESIS.
OK, lets take a couple.
1) Predict that as fossil specimens are found it will never be the case that more advanced physiological forms predate more complex ones, within the same family.
2) Predict that in all biological families, the fossil data will tend to confirm that species and families of species are subject to branching whereupon if you look far enough back, members of the species or family of species with be shown by the fossil physiological evidence to have a common ancestor with other species or families.
3) Predict that more recently, as genetics became more advanced, we would find that more closely related species--i.e., those that branched away from each other later rather than sooner--would have more closely similar
genetic structures.
If one of those predictions turns out to be incorrect, then the entire theory behind macroevolution is falsified, and we have to look elsewhere. The thing is, in all three cases, every observation that has been uncovered confirms all three of these hypotheses, and many others covered in TalkOrigins.
Does that confirm a prediction in the same fashion as an experiment? Nope. However, here is where that ugly little thing that kicker calls statistics rears its head. When literally hundreds of thousands of pieces of data (more likely millions) confirm every prediction contained in the theory of evolution, and not a single one contradicts it, then the odds become vanishingly small (i.e., zero, in effect) that the hypotheses underlying the theory are incorrect. That is why mainstream scientists call evolution a "fact," not a theory.
Now, try that same set of predictions on ID. Unfortunately, since ID isn't really a science, you can't.
And of course, it should never be forgotten that ID itself is demonstrably a scam, created by Creationists who were seeking a less unattractive way to describe faith, that sorta looked like science.
In the 2005 Pennsylvania case:
Quote:
Judge Jones, a Republican appointed by President Bush, concluded that intelligent design was not science, and that in order to claim that it is, its proponents admit they must change the very definition of science to include supernatural explanations...
"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect," Judge Jones wrote. "However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions..."
Intelligent design posits that biological life is so complex that it must have been designed by an intelligent source. Its adherents say that they refrain from identifying the designer, and that it could even be aliens or a time traveler.
But Judge Jones said the evidence in the trial proved that intelligent design was "creationism relabeled..."
Judge Jones wrote, "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the I.D. policy."
the greatest beyond great defense of faith in God or Jesus or ID or The Bible or The Mass or The Afterlife or Worshipping Baal is and always will be:
Faith
"I believe in this. It works for me. I am glad you other guys found what you believe in and I hope you guys still looking find peace. What I believe works for me and allows me to live the way I want to. I think I am a better man and it helps lead a more compassionate and moral life"
Period. Full Stop.
That answer is accurate, dignified, reasonable, indefeatable, honorable, moral, strong, compassionate and tolerant of others and their beliefs.
The defense of faith is just to say "this is what works for me"
I believe because this helps me be a better man. Not because its more tested, factual, immune to less fallacies, has more or less logic leaps or missing links.
No one...no one can argue with that. Simple. Direct, Valid.
Why in the world would you go to enochville?
Makes me think you don't have faith....you want certainty. You and enoch desperately want certainty in an uncertain world.
Faith is not certainty. It has no need to care about certainty. It is humble not argumentative. Faith is a bet on you. certainty is a search because you are scared about you.
What the fuck are you doing?
You have no need to talk at all if you have faith and just say so.
You for ages want certainty. That and human is an oxymoron.
Stop talking and look in the fucking mirror. Be a fucking man. Either have the balls to say "This is what I believe. It may be flawed. It may sound stupid. It may not be right for you. That's ok. It works for me and my life and that's all that matters.
Faith is the defense of Faith. Period. Always will be true. Always.
Faith does not try to convince any one else by dint of argumentation. A man of faith shows he is a more moral man more times than his failures would have been without his faith. Usually that means a man of faith is humble and shuts the fuck up so he has every bit of energy to get closer to a 49/51 split on life.
You only have a few decades to live. Stop masturbating. Its sophomoric. Especially in public.
'Yeah I know it sounds stupid to some in this day and age but its what I believe in"
That's a guy I wouldn't mind having a drink with.
Pulling from incredibly dumb websites that advise how to defend and debate and convert? A losers game. And for heavens sake...by junior year of high school you should know that degrees and knowing what you are talking about have nothing to do with each other.
Hint: its not what citations you can pull. its about knowing what matters
please stop. you wrecked the only refuge of dignity the genuine believer has to begin with. "I BELIEVE IT" "It WORKS FOR ME" "I don't need to say one more thing."
Now for three days you have self trashed yourself. its crime to self immolate in public. give it rest. have some dignity
how do you think it is that with thousands of peer-reviewed articles in the most prestigious science journals on the topic of evolution
First of all, I've clearly shown "evolution" isn't "Science". "Peer Review" is a Procedural Argument not a Substantive one. Also, Science isn't up for a Vote; Consensus doesn't = TRUTH. "Peer Review" is not a Step in the Scientific Method. Check out the Journal of Creation (it's "Peer Reviewed" by credentialed scientists)
Quote:
1) Not a single one has successfully falsified the analysis confirming macroevolution;
Huh? Falsify it???...you don't have anything to falsify (SEE: detailed post on "Macro").
Quote:
2) Not a single one has confirmed ID as an alternate hypothesis?
You sure?
Science has often progressed through the formulation of null hypotheses. Falsification allows elimination of plausible postulates. The main contentions of this paper are offered in that context. We invite potential collaborators to join us in our active pursuit of falsification of these null hypotheses.
Testable hypotheses about FSC(Functional Sequence Complexity)
What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses:
Null hypothesis #1
Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.
Null hypothesis #2
Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.
Null hypothesis #3
Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.
Null hypothesis #4
Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time.
We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified.
Abel, DL., Trevors, JT., Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric; Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 2005, 2:29; doi:10.1186/1742-4682-2-29
In other words...Show Stupid Atoms Writing Their Own Software?
Quote:
Are you suggesting that the most brilliant scientific minds in the world, mostly post-docs in biology, biochemistry, evolution, genetics and on and on and on are either stupid or involved in a scam? What is your hypothesis?
Don't know, you tell me? My 10 year old can refute the most supreme evolutionary geneticist <---(that's actually a contradiction in Terms). Scripture tells me that satan is the "wisest" of all creations, his fingerprints are all over it.
Quote:
And as far as confirming a theory without experimentation, lets take a couple of examples that would appear to confirm evolution. Take some statements related to evolution, such as in the TalkOrigins piece I linked numerous times, and lets see how one would test them without experimentation. How would one do that? BY PREDICTIING WHAT UNKNOWN DATA WILL LOOK LIKE WHEN FOUND, AND SEEING WHETHER OR NOT IT CONFIRMS THE HYPOTHESIS.
Talk Origins?
"The group is characterized by a long list of in-crowd jokes like the fictitious University of Ediacara,[3] the equally fictitious Evil Atheist Conspiracy[4] which allegedly hides all the evidence supporting Creationism, a monthly election of the Chez Watt-award for "statements that make you go 'say what', or some such.",[5] pun cascades, a strong predisposition to quoting Monty Python and a habit of calling penguins "the best birds"." /wiki/Talk.origins
What's next, the National Enquirer?
Quote:
OK, lets take a couple.
1) Predict that as fossil specimens are found it will never be the case that more advanced physiological forms predate more complex ones, within the same family.
2) Predict that in all biological families, the fossil data will tend to confirm that species and families of species are subject to branching whereupon if you look far enough back, members of the species or family of species with be shown by the fossil physiological evidence to have a common ancestor with other species or families.
3) Predict that more recently, as genetics became more advanced, we would find that more closely related species--i.e., those that branched away from each other later rather than sooner--would have more closely similar
genetic structures.
If one of those predictions turns out to be incorrect, then the entire theory behind macroevolution is falsified, and we have to look elsewhere. The thing is, in all three cases, every observation that has been uncovered confirms all three of these hypotheses, and many others covered in TalkOrigins.
Does that confirm a prediction in the same fashion as an experiment? Nope.
Need I say more?
Can you tell me the difference between a "PRE"-diction and a POST-diction?
Then this...
“Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only".
Carol V. Ward (paleoanthropologist) University of Missouri; Experts Tackle Questions of How Humans will Evolve; Scientific American, Vol 311, Issue 3; 19 August 2014
And this...
Henry Gee PhD (Paleontology, Evolutionary Biology) Senior Editor Nature...
“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
Henry Gee PhD; In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, 2001, pp. 116-117
Similarity doesn't = Causation! I can say with equal Scientific Vigor....Common Designer.
You also have BIG problems here...
Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life; New Scientist, 21 January 2009....
"Biologist Michael Syvanen of the University of California said that, "Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another… We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more…"
"Having uprooted the tree of unicellular life, biologists are now taking their axes to the remaining branches."
"Conventionally, sea squirts - also known as tunicates - are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates".
"But today the project [to reconstruct the tree] lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says [an evolutionary biologist from Marie Curie University in Paris, Eric] Bapteste".
"RNA, for example, might suggest that species A was more closely related to species B than species C, but a tree made from DNA would suggest the reverse".
"And to make matters worse, protein sequencing might suggest yet a third evolutionary pathway, and then all of these were producing trees that contradicted the traditional pathways based on fossil evidence and anatomy".
Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution; Nature, 27 June 2012.....
"Tiny molecules called microRNAs are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree." Says Dr. Kevin Peterson, "I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree."
'The microRNAs are totally unambiguous,' he says, 'but they give a totally different tree from what everyone else wants."
Understanding phylogenetic incongruence: lessons from phyllostomid bats; Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, November 2012 ....
"Also, "Our analyses have shown that… there is significant incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological and molecular data..."
"There is no tree of life....it's an artifact from early scientific studies that aren't holding up"!
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics); Arizona State Origins Project; 12 February 2011
All of your points basically fall into a Textbook Formal Logical Fallacy: Affirming the Consequent....
If P then Q.
Q.
Therefore P.
The logical fallacy is that P doesn't necessarily follow from Q.
1. IF Evolution is true: Then Insert any "Darwinian Grab-Bag" Ad Hoc Observations (Fossils/Homology/Genetic Variation et al)
2. We observe (Ad Hoc Observation)
3. Therefore, Evolution is true.
1) If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full;
2) I feel very full;
3.) Therefore: I have just eaten a whole pizza.
Couldn't I have eaten a 20 ounce Ribeye with Fries?
Quote:
However, here is where that ugly little thing that kicker calls statistics rears its head. When literally hundreds of thousands of pieces of data (more likely millions) confirm every prediction contained in the theory of evolution, and not a single one contradicts it, then the odds become vanishingly small (i.e., zero, in effect) that the hypotheses underlying the theory are incorrect. That is why mainstream scientists call evolution a "fact," not a theory.
You have "No Predictions" (SEE: Above) just "ad hoc" rescue devices, the poster children (PE/Convergent et al) the never ending Ptolemaic Epicycles. And "Statistics" is not "Science".
Quote:
Now, try that same set of predictions on ID. Unfortunately, since ID isn't really a science, you can't.
Au Contraire...SEE Null Hypotheses Above.
Quote:
And of course, it should never be forgotten that ID itself is demonstrably a scam, created by Creationists who were seeking a less unattractive way to describe faith, that sorta looked like science.
Ipse Dixit, eh?
Quote:
In the 2005 Pennsylvania case:
Quote:
Judge Jones, a Republican appointed by President Bush, concluded that intelligent design was not science, and that in order to claim that it is, its proponents admit they must change the very definition of science to include supernatural explanations...
"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect," Judge Jones wrote. "However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions..."
Intelligent design posits that biological life is so complex that it must have been designed by an intelligent source. Its adherents say that they refrain from identifying the designer, and that it could even be aliens or a time traveler.
But Judge Jones said the evidence in the trial proved that intelligent design was "creationism relabeled..."
Judge Jones wrote, "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the I.D. policy."
Yup, it is.
So a Judge gets to adjudicate "Scientific" Matters, eh? Who's next MADD?
Wonder if he called upon His vast experience presiding over the Pennsylvania State Liquor Control Board?
Let's take a closer look...
@ the end of a Trail a Document is filed with the Judge from Both Parties before a Judgement is handed down: Both Sides File with the Judge: "A Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law" Document.
Eric Rothschild The Lead Attorney for the Plaintiffs (ACLU !) Document remarks and Judge Jones Ruling:
ER: "The assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the "purposeful arrangement of parts" is based on an analogy to human design."
JJ: "Indeed, the assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the "purposeful arrangement of parts" is based upon an analogy to human design".
So Judge Jones adds "INDEED" and "UP" to "on" to make "Upon".
ER: "According to Professor Behe, because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects, that same reasoning can be employed to determine biological design."
JJ: "Because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects, according to Professor Behe, that same reasoning can be employed to determine biological design."
So Judge Jones decides to move "According to Professor Behe" a little further away from the beginning of the sentence. It's exactly the same sentence IN TOTO.
ER: "Professor Behe testified that the strength of an analogy depends on the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions. If this is the test, Intelligent Design completely fails.
JJ: "Professor Behe testified that the strength of the analogy depends upon the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions; however, if this is the test, ID completely fails.
So the Judge adds an "However" and another "UP" to "ON" again to make "upon". Additional editing... the Judge added a semi-colon before however and replaced Intelligent Design with "ID".
If you wish, I can post the entirety of this Cut and Paste Fiasco Kangaroo Court....which besides three additional words, is ERIC ROTHSCHILD'S COMPLETE DOCUMENT CUT AND PASTED FOR JUDGE JONES TO RENDER!!!!
Boston University law professor Jay Wexler, who opposes ID, concurs that: "part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is unnecessary, unconvincing, not particularly suited to the judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous to both science and freedom of religion".
Jay Wexler, Judging Intelligent Design: Should the Courts Decide What Counts as Science or
Religion? The Boisi Center for Religion & American Public Life at Boston College (Sept. 28, 2006)
Enoch, your suggestion that you have proved that what those tens of thousands of world class scientists are doing isn't science is pretty world class, in its own way. What do you think that THEY think they are doing, and why would anyone take your word as to what constitutes science over theirs?
Not worth the energy to respond to that gibberish. I gave you an alternate viewpoint, and you aren't interested in considering it. The intersection of faith and confirmation bias at its finest. You have been well schooled by the ID propagandists, which puts you beyond the pale.
Do you deny that the first publication of the term intelligent design in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high school biology classes? That the term was substituted into drafts of the book after the 1987 United States Supreme Court's Edwards v. Aguillard decision, which barred the teaching of creation science in public schools on constitutional grounds?
That's what the Pennsylvania judge found. Was he lying? Do you have evidence that the phrase DIDN'T start as a scam designed to end-run the SCOTUS ruling against the teaching Creation Science?
[quote] Enoch, your suggestion that you have proved that what those tens of thousands of world class scientists are doing isn't science is pretty world class, in its own way. What do you think that THEY think they are doing, and why would anyone take your word as to what constitutes science over theirs?
I spent over 20 years in the military sir (Recon for half of it). I've been lied to either intentionally/unintentionally by everyone from my Kindergarten Teacher, Pastors, University Professors, Military Supervisors...My BS Meter runs on Hyper-Drive 24/7, You tracking? I said NO MORE!! So then I went and found the answers for myself.
If you want to believe what other people (with initials behind their names) tell you to believe without employing your own Due Diligence then.... you get what you get.
I have these same "discussions" with many from the Hallowed Halls of Academia daily...and I get the same responses; They call me names!! Why? Because they have No Argument.
They screwed up an Educated Me lol...Biochemistry, and taught me how to research...I'm their Huckleberry!!
Quote:
Not worth the energy to respond to that gibberish.
Sweeping Baseless Assertion (Fallacy). It's not gibberish, it's right as rain.
Quote:
I gave you an alternate viewpoint, and you aren't interested in considering it.
Say What? I spent an hour answering every single remark in your post sir...you're about 3 degrees from sincerity with this.
Quote:
The intersection of faith and confirmation bias at its finest.
Biblical Faith is defined as Substance and Evidence (SEE: Hebrews 11:1). You're Equivocating (Fallacy) "Blind" Faith with "Biblical" Faith. There is No Confirmation Bias...it's the exact opposite! Everything is filtered through my own personal crucible...not much gets past the first obstacle.
Quote:
You have been well schooled by the ID propagandists, which puts you beyond the pale.
They didn't teach me sir...I was way ahead of 'em. Propaganda, eh? Yea, been to that school.. got a Truckload of T-Shirts!
Not sure what being in the military for 20 years (and in recon) has anything to do with your long diatribe clearly showing your lack of understanding of what scientific method is. Good for you for serving, but what does that have to do with this conversation? So you've been lied to your entire life by others. But now you're lying to yourself that you know what you're talking about. So I guess your just traded in one shitty experience for another.
I would forth the idea that to deny science is in it's own way a way to deny god.
Whatever you may believe, one of the tenants of judeo-christian thought is that God created man in his own image.
The atheist would disagree with that, man has no connection to anything but nature ...........that our curious and intelligent nature comes from a series of evolutionary processes that allow us to think in the abstract, to give us the much higher brainpower over every other living thing on the planet, to examine and discover the world and the world through testing and come up with reasonable examinations for why the natural world works the way it works.
So back to the beginning of this post, why would such a God give us this gift to explore this creation (hyothetical) if not to understand it? If in fact we were meant to deny science, what is the point of giving us this ability? This abiilty to question and probe into the nature of Creation was given to us by this creator........was it not?
Evolution is not really an open question. Genetics, fossil records, and a whole host of scientific disciplines, serious people doing serious work, have all essentially come to the same conclusion.
In that sense, to deny reasonable science is to deny the very gift those that believe in him must by extension believe he gave us.
So, atheist and theist can argue about why these scientific facts are what they are, but facts are what they are.
I have no idea whether or not some form of God exists or not, I am confident nobody else does either.
Are we allowed to have political threads now? I hope the answer is yes b/c I enjoy these threads. Also I've been thinking about how Scott Walker is taking on the U of Wisconsin and wanted to start a thread on it.
Even the eminent Bill2 would bother to refute the link I referenced three times. Instead Bill2 tells me to just say, "I have faith and I need no more...."
Duh!!!!!
Bill2, have you read any of the crap your drinking buddies have spewed out my way? They don't want my faith as an answer.mthey want SCIENCE.
If anyone is interested in knowing the truth, read Michael Behe's books. Pretty impressive if you ask me. Hugh Ross is good too.
Have a great day, BBI haters. (You know who you are.)
Seriously though, spock's a fucking lawyer?
Well, lawyer the same that this guy is a lawyer?
Quote:
The Adam and Eve story seems pretty accurate to me, especially seeing Jesus site Adam in his words (confirmation).
Spock, can I have more details on why the adam and eve story seems pretty accurate?
Please present science - not an article from some fucking Christian website called "Abounding Joy".
Spock, you were much more interesting when you were trying to figure out why god made someone in your house a porn hound...
Seriously though, spock's a fucking lawyer?
Yeah, what are you?
Quote:
Please refute this article with science. Thanks. Molecular biology - ( New Window )
Please present science - not an article from some fucking Christian website called "Abounding Joy".
Spock, you were much more interesting when you were trying to figure out why god made someone in your house a porn hound...
Rob, all you had to say was simply- I can't refute it Spock. Maybe bill2 can, but not me.
Memo to Spock- don't talk to a-holes. Stay focused.
Got it!
Ignore on
But none of that is really relevant given that I'm jewish. For that alone, I'm going to hell according to you and your faith and there's not a damn thing I can do it about other than declare jesus my lord and savior.
Quote:
In comment 12140477 Spock said:
Quote:
Please refute this article with science. Thanks. Molecular biology - ( New Window )
Please present science - not an article from some fucking Christian website called "Abounding Joy".
Spock, you were much more interesting when you were trying to figure out why god made someone in your house a porn hound...
Rob, all you had to say was simply- I can't refute it Spock. Maybe bill2 can, but not me.
It's not incumbent upon me to refute every fucking lie you link to, you anti-Semitic piece of shit. I could do the same thing, and link to sites that state that Jesus was buggering Mary Magdelene. thirty three years is a long time without dipping the old wick.
Married with Children - ( New Window )
Quote:
how unwelcome you truly are, since it's not getting through to your Jesus-sexual fantasy addled head.
Memo to Spock- don't talk to a-holes. Stay focused.
Got it!
Ignore on
No way it can't be you, right?
That said, its the go to defense for Creationist - although its good to know the popular term is now "Bacteria to Boyscout" and no longer "Dogs never become cats".
You sure? Since evolution fails as even "Scientific" or a "Theory" as previously addressed..and can't come close to even "ONE" Functional DNA/RNA/Protein spontaneously polymerizing "Naturally" outside an Already existing Cell--- just the (Hardware), without even speaking to INFORMATION/Software ---The CODE. Let's see what you got:
Please explain one microscopic aspect of the "evolution" of Prokaryotes to Eukaryotes, please reconcile...
In Eukaryote's, transport of mRNA from the nucleus to the cytoplasm is coupled to splicing and does not occur until all the splicing is complete (and additional modifications, See below). How does mRNA enter the cytoplasm for translation during the evolution of the splicing mechanism? Magic?
Moreover, How did Stupid Atoms "figure out" the need for the 5 Prime Cap on Pre-mRNA so that it wouldn't be degraded as soon as it was polymerized? Prokaryotes don't do this! Did the Stupid Atoms "Learn" it by trial and error? Then they must have "learned" that "we" (Stupid Atoms) have to protect the other end when it is finished with a 3 Prime "polyA Tail" so RNase's can't have a RNA dinner. Why put a "tail" on that end that is Chemically different from The Tri-phosphate Bridge (5 Prime Cap)? If these Specific "Caps and Tails" aren't added, (AND, the entire Splicing Process Completed, which would make Einstein Blush), mRNA cannot traverse the Gauntlet into the Cytoplasm------Ergo, No Protein-ee;....No Life-ee.
Without the 5 Prime Cap/polyA tail/ and Splicing.... which allows it to transverse the Nuclear Envelope, the "yet to be assembled" Ribosome (In the Cytoplasm)...is a Football Bat; Translation will not occur without the 5 Prime Cap. (And where did you get the Ribosome, since it takes mRNA and the entire process above to make the Ribosome??). That's quite a fortuitous set of Mind Boggling sequence of events to get everything on the same page; That is...some serious Conflict Resolution Programming for Blind Stupid Atoms with two completely separate processes (about 50 sub-processes), that would make Einstein Blush, in two completely different locations. You think they can whip up a Western Omelet without any eggs? Maybe it was "evolution"? Maybe the "Magical" yet to be assembled Ribosome hung out for a billion years "in Soup" synthesizing "Functional Proteins" from Silicates until the request and approval were ratified? Who was the Arbitrator...Natural Selection?
Define Preposterous Ludicrous Absurdity?
regards
I thought you knew!
You guys keep telling me I'm scientifically challenged and closed minded, so here I am, opening myself up to receive your good word of instruction. (I even asked Enoch but he must have missed it too. )
Thanks and good night
Refute me - ( New Window )
Would you like the chapters to some statistics textbook to help you understand?
It's spock, fying under false colors and cribbing from sources not his own.
Quote:
Its taught in some high school bio classes to "dumb down" the subject matter to students, to make it easily digestible and allow things to be viewed on a "scale". It was coined in the 1920s by a Russian scientist (Filipchenko), but the reality is that there is no dividing line between the two concepts. Anyone with an advance degree in Biology will not use the terms and mentioning them is an easy way to tell that someone is in a high school bio class and anxious to discuss what they've studied or trying to apply concepts they don't understand to put forward an agenda.
That said, its the go to defense for Creationist - although its good to know the popular term is now "Bacteria to Boyscout" and no longer "Dogs never become cats".
You sure? Since evolution fails as even "Scientific" or a "Theory" as previously addressed..and can't come close to even "ONE" Functional DNA/RNA/Protein spontaneously polymerizing "Naturally" outside an Already existing Cell--- just the (Hardware), without even speaking to INFORMATION/Software ---The CODE. Let's see what you got:
Please explain one microscopic aspect of the "evolution" of Prokaryotes to Eukaryotes, please reconcile...
In Eukaryote's, transport of mRNA from the nucleus to the cytoplasm is coupled to splicing and does not occur until all the splicing is complete (and additional modifications, See below). How does mRNA enter the cytoplasm for translation during the evolution of the splicing mechanism? Magic?
Moreover, How did Stupid Atoms "figure out" the need for the 5 Prime Cap on Pre-mRNA so that it wouldn't be degraded as soon as it was polymerized? Prokaryotes don't do this! Did the Stupid Atoms "Learn" it by trial and error? Then they must have "learned" that "we" (Stupid Atoms) have to protect the other end when it is finished with a 3 Prime "polyA Tail" so RNase's can't have a RNA dinner. Why put a "tail" on that end that is Chemically different from The Tri-phosphate Bridge (5 Prime Cap)? If these Specific "Caps and Tails" aren't added, (AND, the entire Splicing Process Completed, which would make Einstein Blush), mRNA cannot traverse the Gauntlet into the Cytoplasm------Ergo, No Protein-ee;....No Life-ee.
Without the 5 Prime Cap/polyA tail/ and Splicing.... which allows it to transverse the Nuclear Envelope, the "yet to be assembled" Ribosome (In the Cytoplasm)...is a Football Bat; Translation will not occur without the 5 Prime Cap. (And where did you get the Ribosome, since it takes mRNA and the entire process above to make the Ribosome??). That's quite a fortuitous set of Mind Boggling sequence of events to get everything on the same page; That is...some serious Conflict Resolution Programming for Blind Stupid Atoms with two completely separate processes (about 50 sub-processes), that would make Einstein Blush, in two completely different locations. You think they can whip up a Western Omelet without any eggs? Maybe it was "evolution"? Maybe the "Magical" yet to be assembled Ribosome hung out for a billion years "in Soup" synthesizing "Functional Proteins" from Silicates until the request and approval were ratified? Who was the Arbitrator...Natural Selection?
Define Preposterous Ludicrous Absurdity?
regards
I assume now is the time I go into a long discussion of Giardia Lamblia, only for it to be refuted by a long string of well placed buzzwords and a reshuffling of the playing deck.
So I'm going Charlie Kelly here and playing a Wild Card - Nitro nailed it, its Jesus' magic pixie dust.
It's a real seesaw to figure out who's more pathetic.
Or
Is this debate... There is no such thing as evolution because you can't prove it scientifically, thus god did it?
Or
Is this debate... There is no god because unproven science says so?
It's this one: "There is no such thing as evolution because you can't prove it scientifically, thus god did it?"
George Wald Nobel Laureate Medicine and Physiology...
“The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. …Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.” {Emphasis Mine}
Wald, G., “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191 [2]: 45-46, 1954.
Or, show how...
1. Stupid Atoms Wrote There Own Software...i.e., Ink/Paper/Graphite/Glue Molecules authoring War and Peace?
2. The Universe Created Itself....from Nothing; In a 1LOT context?
3. Stars/Planets coalesced (Nebular Hypothesis)...in a 2LOT, Boyle's Gas Law, Jeans Mass, and the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum context.
For Starters.
Not only can you NOT prove evolution "Scientifically"...it's tenets take to the Woodshed and Bludgeon Senseless:
1. Laws of Thermodynamics "Pillars of Science".
2. Jeans Mass
3. Boyle's Gas Law
4. The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum
5. Law of Biogenesis
6. Laws of Information
7. Laws of Chemistry/Biochemistry
8. Functional Sequence Complexity
9. Irreducible Complexity
10. Quantum Mechanics
11. Laws of Logic
12. Common Sense
regards
It's a real seesaw to figure out who's more pathetic.
I agree that what you propose is a possibility, but it's just too coincidental that spock was getting his ass kicked and good old Enoch suddenly appeared.
So, I very strongly believe this is spock, who has a history of bannings and handle changes, randomly selecting supposed refutations from creationist sites. The fact that there is no internal organization or rigor in Enoch's posts point straight at spock's years of hypocrisy on here.
Ergo, spock and enoch are one and the same. The really sad part of all this is that supposedly spock has children (created without sex, of course) and has turned them into little morons who had no chance from the start.
A very good candidate for a child abuse charge if I ever saw one.
Quote:
Is this debate... There is a god and you can't prove that I am wrong, so I am right?
Or
Is this debate... There is no such thing as evolution because you can't prove it scientifically, thus god did it?
Or
Is this debate... There is no god because unproven science says so?
It's this one: "There is no such thing as evolution because you can't prove it scientifically, thus god did it?"
George Wald Nobel Laureate Medicine and Physiology...
“The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. …Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.” {Emphasis Mine}
Wald, G., “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191 [2]: 45-46, 1954.
Or, show how...
1. Stupid Atoms Wrote There Own Software...i.e., Ink/Paper/Graphite/Glue Molecules authoring War and Peace?
2. The Universe Created Itself....from Nothing; In a 1LOT context?
3. Stars/Planets coalesced (Nebular Hypothesis)...in a 2LOT, Boyle's Gas Law, Jeans Mass, and the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum context.
For Starters.
Not only can you NOT prove evolution "Scientifically"...it's tenets take to the Woodshed and Bludgeon Senseless:
1. Laws of Thermodynamics "Pillars of Science".
2. Jeans Mass
3. Boyle's Gas Law
4. The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum
5. Law of Biogenesis
6. Laws of Information
7. Laws of Chemistry/Biochemistry
8. Functional Sequence Complexity
9. Irreducible Complexity
10. Quantum Mechanics
11. Laws of Logic
12. Common Sense
regards
Hard to say which one damages humanity more in the long-term....
All you have is name calling and dragging through the mud anyone that doesn't agree with your Fairytale Ideology without @ least a semblance of a cogent well thought out argument in defense.
This isn't Rocket Science; if you can't square "Nature" writing Algorithmic Cybernetic Coding and Decoding Schemes (SEE: DNA----"CODE") ....which is Ludicrous Absurdity, what's left??
(Isaiah 1:18) "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."
His yoke is easy and burden is light...It's Absolutely Free, Paid In Full!! His Name is Jesus Christ...and He Loves You.
Hope it helps
Baahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
1) Not a single one has successfully falsified the analysis confirming macroevolution; and
2) Not a single one has confirmed ID as an alternate hypothesis?
Are you suggesting that the most brilliant scientific minds in the world, mostly post-docs in biology, biochemistry, evolution, genetics and on and on and on are either stupid or involved in a scam? What is your hypothesis?
And as far as confirming a theory without experimentation, lets take a couple of examples that would appear to confirm evolution. Take some statements related to evolution, such as in the TalkOrigins piece I linked numerous times, and lets see how one would test them without experimentation. How would one do that? BY PREDICTIING WHAT UNKNOWN DATA WILL LOOK LIKE WHEN FOUND, AND SEEING WHETHER OR NOT IT CONFIRMS THE HYPOTHESIS.
OK, lets take a couple.
1) Predict that as fossil specimens are found it will never be the case that more advanced physiological forms predate more complex ones, within the same family.
2) Predict that in all biological families, the fossil data will tend to confirm that species and families of species are subject to branching whereupon if you look far enough back, members of the species or family of species with be shown by the fossil physiological evidence to have a common ancestor with other species or families.
3) Predict that more recently, as genetics became more advanced, we would find that more closely related species--i.e., those that branched away from each other later rather than sooner--would have more closely similar
genetic structures.
If one of those predictions turns out to be incorrect, then the entire theory behind macroevolution is falsified, and we have to look elsewhere. The thing is, in all three cases, every observation that has been uncovered confirms all three of these hypotheses, and many others covered in TalkOrigins.
Does that confirm a prediction in the same fashion as an experiment? Nope. However, here is where that ugly little thing that kicker calls statistics rears its head. When literally hundreds of thousands of pieces of data (more likely millions) confirm every prediction contained in the theory of evolution, and not a single one contradicts it, then the odds become vanishingly small (i.e., zero, in effect) that the hypotheses underlying the theory are incorrect. That is why mainstream scientists call evolution a "fact," not a theory.
Now, try that same set of predictions on ID. Unfortunately, since ID isn't really a science, you can't.
And of course, it should never be forgotten that ID itself is demonstrably a scam, created by Creationists who were seeking a less unattractive way to describe faith, that sorta looked like science.
In the 2005 Pennsylvania case:
Judge Jones, a Republican appointed by President Bush, concluded that intelligent design was not science, and that in order to claim that it is, its proponents admit they must change the very definition of science to include supernatural explanations...
"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect," Judge Jones wrote. "However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions..."
Intelligent design posits that biological life is so complex that it must have been designed by an intelligent source. Its adherents say that they refrain from identifying the designer, and that it could even be aliens or a time traveler.
But Judge Jones said the evidence in the trial proved that intelligent design was "creationism relabeled..."
Judge Jones wrote, "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the I.D. policy."
Yup, it is.
Baahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
I wasn't going to post on this thread. But damn Shep, you nailed it sir.
Quote:
Of the mysterious video tape fame, is it?
It's spock, fying under false colors and cribbing from sources not his own.
That diabolical genius!
Faith
"I believe in this. It works for me. I am glad you other guys found what you believe in and I hope you guys still looking find peace. What I believe works for me and allows me to live the way I want to. I think I am a better man and it helps lead a more compassionate and moral life"
Period. Full Stop.
That answer is accurate, dignified, reasonable, indefeatable, honorable, moral, strong, compassionate and tolerant of others and their beliefs.
The defense of faith is just to say "this is what works for me"
I believe because this helps me be a better man. Not because its more tested, factual, immune to less fallacies, has more or less logic leaps or missing links.
No one...no one can argue with that. Simple. Direct, Valid.
Why in the world would you go to enochville?
Makes me think you don't have faith....you want certainty. You and enoch desperately want certainty in an uncertain world.
Faith is not certainty. It has no need to care about certainty. It is humble not argumentative. Faith is a bet on you. certainty is a search because you are scared about you.
What the fuck are you doing?
You have no need to talk at all if you have faith and just say so.
You for ages want certainty. That and human is an oxymoron.
Stop talking and look in the fucking mirror. Be a fucking man. Either have the balls to say "This is what I believe. It may be flawed. It may sound stupid. It may not be right for you. That's ok. It works for me and my life and that's all that matters.
Faith is the defense of Faith. Period. Always will be true. Always.
Faith does not try to convince any one else by dint of argumentation. A man of faith shows he is a more moral man more times than his failures would have been without his faith. Usually that means a man of faith is humble and shuts the fuck up so he has every bit of energy to get closer to a 49/51 split on life.
You only have a few decades to live. Stop masturbating. Its sophomoric. Especially in public.
Good night and God Bless.
That's a guy I wouldn't mind having a drink with.
Pulling from incredibly dumb websites that advise how to defend and debate and convert? A losers game. And for heavens sake...by junior year of high school you should know that degrees and knowing what you are talking about have nothing to do with each other.
Hint: its not what citations you can pull. its about knowing what matters
please stop. you wrecked the only refuge of dignity the genuine believer has to begin with. "I BELIEVE IT" "It WORKS FOR ME" "I don't need to say one more thing."
Now for three days you have self trashed yourself. its crime to self immolate in public. give it rest. have some dignity
First of all, I've clearly shown "evolution" isn't "Science". "Peer Review" is a Procedural Argument not a Substantive one. Also, Science isn't up for a Vote; Consensus doesn't = TRUTH. "Peer Review" is not a Step in the Scientific Method. Check out the Journal of Creation (it's "Peer Reviewed" by credentialed scientists)
Huh? Falsify it???...you don't have anything to falsify (SEE: detailed post on "Macro").
You sure?
Science has often progressed through the formulation of null hypotheses. Falsification allows elimination of plausible postulates. The main contentions of this paper are offered in that context. We invite potential collaborators to join us in our active pursuit of falsification of these null hypotheses.
Testable hypotheses about FSC(Functional Sequence Complexity)
What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses:
Null hypothesis #1
Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.
Null hypothesis #2
Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.
Null hypothesis #3
Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.
Null hypothesis #4
Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time.
We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified.
Abel, DL., Trevors, JT., Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric; Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 2005, 2:29; doi:10.1186/1742-4682-2-29
In other words...Show Stupid Atoms Writing Their Own Software?
Don't know, you tell me? My 10 year old can refute the most supreme evolutionary geneticist <---(that's actually a contradiction in Terms). Scripture tells me that satan is the "wisest" of all creations, his fingerprints are all over it.
Talk Origins?
"The group is characterized by a long list of in-crowd jokes like the fictitious University of Ediacara,[3] the equally fictitious Evil Atheist Conspiracy[4] which allegedly hides all the evidence supporting Creationism, a monthly election of the Chez Watt-award for "statements that make you go 'say what', or some such.",[5] pun cascades, a strong predisposition to quoting Monty Python and a habit of calling penguins "the best birds"."
/wiki/Talk.origins
What's next, the National Enquirer?
1) Predict that as fossil specimens are found it will never be the case that more advanced physiological forms predate more complex ones, within the same family.
2) Predict that in all biological families, the fossil data will tend to confirm that species and families of species are subject to branching whereupon if you look far enough back, members of the species or family of species with be shown by the fossil physiological evidence to have a common ancestor with other species or families.
3) Predict that more recently, as genetics became more advanced, we would find that more closely related species--i.e., those that branched away from each other later rather than sooner--would have more closely similar
genetic structures.
If one of those predictions turns out to be incorrect, then the entire theory behind macroevolution is falsified, and we have to look elsewhere. The thing is, in all three cases, every observation that has been uncovered confirms all three of these hypotheses, and many others covered in TalkOrigins.
Does that confirm a prediction in the same fashion as an experiment? Nope.
Need I say more?
Can you tell me the difference between a "PRE"-diction and a POST-diction?
Then this...
“Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only".
Carol V. Ward (paleoanthropologist) University of Missouri; Experts Tackle Questions of How Humans will Evolve; Scientific American, Vol 311, Issue 3; 19 August 2014
And this...
Henry Gee PhD (Paleontology, Evolutionary Biology) Senior Editor Nature...
“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
Henry Gee PhD; In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, 2001, pp. 116-117
Similarity doesn't = Causation! I can say with equal Scientific Vigor....Common Designer.
You also have BIG problems here...
Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life; New Scientist, 21 January 2009....
"Biologist Michael Syvanen of the University of California said that, "Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another… We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more…"
"Having uprooted the tree of unicellular life, biologists are now taking their axes to the remaining branches."
"Conventionally, sea squirts - also known as tunicates - are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates".
"But today the project [to reconstruct the tree] lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says [an evolutionary biologist from Marie Curie University in Paris, Eric] Bapteste".
"RNA, for example, might suggest that species A was more closely related to species B than species C, but a tree made from DNA would suggest the reverse".
"And to make matters worse, protein sequencing might suggest yet a third evolutionary pathway, and then all of these were producing trees that contradicted the traditional pathways based on fossil evidence and anatomy".
Phylogeny: Rewriting evolution; Nature, 27 June 2012.....
"Tiny molecules called microRNAs are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree." Says Dr. Kevin Peterson, "I've looked at thousands of microRNA genes, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree."
'The microRNAs are totally unambiguous,' he says, 'but they give a totally different tree from what everyone else wants."
Understanding phylogenetic incongruence: lessons from phyllostomid bats; Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, November 2012 ....
"Also, "Our analyses have shown that… there is significant incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological and molecular data..."
"There is no tree of life....it's an artifact from early scientific studies that aren't holding up"!
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics); Arizona State Origins Project; 12 February 2011
All of your points basically fall into a Textbook Formal Logical Fallacy: Affirming the Consequent....
If P then Q.
Q.
Therefore P.
The logical fallacy is that P doesn't necessarily follow from Q.
1. IF Evolution is true: Then Insert any "Darwinian Grab-Bag" Ad Hoc Observations (Fossils/Homology/Genetic Variation et al)
2. We observe (Ad Hoc Observation)
3. Therefore, Evolution is true.
1) If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full;
2) I feel very full;
3.) Therefore: I have just eaten a whole pizza.
Couldn't I have eaten a 20 ounce Ribeye with Fries?
You have "No Predictions" (SEE: Above) just "ad hoc" rescue devices, the poster children (PE/Convergent et al) the never ending Ptolemaic Epicycles. And "Statistics" is not "Science".
Au Contraire...SEE Null Hypotheses Above.
Ipse Dixit, eh?
Quote:
Judge Jones, a Republican appointed by President Bush, concluded that intelligent design was not science, and that in order to claim that it is, its proponents admit they must change the very definition of science to include supernatural explanations...
"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect," Judge Jones wrote. "However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions..."
Intelligent design posits that biological life is so complex that it must have been designed by an intelligent source. Its adherents say that they refrain from identifying the designer, and that it could even be aliens or a time traveler.
But Judge Jones said the evidence in the trial proved that intelligent design was "creationism relabeled..."
Judge Jones wrote, "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the I.D. policy."
Yup, it is.
So a Judge gets to adjudicate "Scientific" Matters, eh? Who's next MADD?
Wonder if he called upon His vast experience presiding over the Pennsylvania State Liquor Control Board?
Let's take a closer look...
@ the end of a Trail a Document is filed with the Judge from Both Parties before a Judgement is handed down: Both Sides File with the Judge: "A Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law" Document.
Eric Rothschild The Lead Attorney for the Plaintiffs (ACLU !) Document remarks and Judge Jones Ruling:
ER: "The assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the "purposeful arrangement of parts" is based on an analogy to human design."
JJ: "Indeed, the assertion that design of biological systems can be inferred from the "purposeful arrangement of parts" is based upon an analogy to human design".
So Judge Jones adds "INDEED" and "UP" to "on" to make "Upon".
ER: "According to Professor Behe, because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects, that same reasoning can be employed to determine biological design."
JJ: "Because we are able to recognize design of artifacts and objects, according to Professor Behe, that same reasoning can be employed to determine biological design."
So Judge Jones decides to move "According to Professor Behe" a little further away from the beginning of the sentence. It's exactly the same sentence IN TOTO.
ER: "Professor Behe testified that the strength of an analogy depends on the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions. If this is the test, Intelligent Design completely fails.
JJ: "Professor Behe testified that the strength of the analogy depends upon the degree of similarity entailed in the two propositions; however, if this is the test, ID completely fails.
So the Judge adds an "However" and another "UP" to "ON" again to make "upon". Additional editing... the Judge added a semi-colon before however and replaced Intelligent Design with "ID".
If you wish, I can post the entirety of this Cut and Paste Fiasco Kangaroo Court....which besides three additional words, is ERIC ROTHSCHILD'S COMPLETE DOCUMENT CUT AND PASTED FOR JUDGE JONES TO RENDER!!!!
Boston University law professor Jay Wexler, who opposes ID, concurs that: "part of Kitzmiller that finds ID not to be science is unnecessary, unconvincing, not particularly suited to the judicial role, and even perhaps dangerous to both science and freedom of religion".
Jay Wexler, Judging Intelligent Design: Should the Courts Decide What Counts as Science or
Religion? The Boisi Center for Religion & American Public Life at Boston College (Sept. 28, 2006)
Anything else?
Enoch, your suggestion that you have proved that what those tens of thousands of world class scientists are doing isn't science is pretty world class, in its own way. What do you think that THEY think they are doing, and why would anyone take your word as to what constitutes science over theirs?
Not worth the energy to respond to that gibberish. I gave you an alternate viewpoint, and you aren't interested in considering it. The intersection of faith and confirmation bias at its finest. You have been well schooled by the ID propagandists, which puts you beyond the pale.
Good night.
That's what the Pennsylvania judge found. Was he lying? Do you have evidence that the phrase DIDN'T start as a scam designed to end-run the SCOTUS ruling against the teaching Creation Science?
[quote] Enoch, your suggestion that you have proved that what those tens of thousands of world class scientists are doing isn't science is pretty world class, in its own way. What do you think that THEY think they are doing, and why would anyone take your word as to what constitutes science over theirs?
I spent over 20 years in the military sir (Recon for half of it). I've been lied to either intentionally/unintentionally by everyone from my Kindergarten Teacher, Pastors, University Professors, Military Supervisors...My BS Meter runs on Hyper-Drive 24/7, You tracking? I said NO MORE!! So then I went and found the answers for myself.
If you want to believe what other people (with initials behind their names) tell you to believe without employing your own Due Diligence then.... you get what you get.
I have these same "discussions" with many from the Hallowed Halls of Academia daily...and I get the same responses; They call me names!! Why? Because they have No Argument.
They screwed up an Educated Me lol...Biochemistry, and taught me how to research...I'm their Huckleberry!!
Sweeping Baseless Assertion (Fallacy). It's not gibberish, it's right as rain.
Say What? I spent an hour answering every single remark in your post sir...you're about 3 degrees from sincerity with this.
Biblical Faith is defined as Substance and Evidence (SEE: Hebrews 11:1). You're Equivocating (Fallacy) "Blind" Faith with "Biblical" Faith. There is No Confirmation Bias...it's the exact opposite! Everything is filtered through my own personal crucible...not much gets past the first obstacle.
They didn't teach me sir...I was way ahead of 'em. Propaganda, eh? Yea, been to that school.. got a Truckload of T-Shirts!
regards
Whatever you may believe, one of the tenants of judeo-christian thought is that God created man in his own image.
The atheist would disagree with that, man has no connection to anything but nature ...........that our curious and intelligent nature comes from a series of evolutionary processes that allow us to think in the abstract, to give us the much higher brainpower over every other living thing on the planet, to examine and discover the world and the world through testing and come up with reasonable examinations for why the natural world works the way it works.
So back to the beginning of this post, why would such a God give us this gift to explore this creation (hyothetical) if not to understand it? If in fact we were meant to deny science, what is the point of giving us this ability? This abiilty to question and probe into the nature of Creation was given to us by this creator........was it not?
Evolution is not really an open question. Genetics, fossil records, and a whole host of scientific disciplines, serious people doing serious work, have all essentially come to the same conclusion.
In that sense, to deny reasonable science is to deny the very gift those that believe in him must by extension believe he gave us.
So, atheist and theist can argue about why these scientific facts are what they are, but facts are what they are.
I have no idea whether or not some form of God exists or not, I am confident nobody else does either.
Oral Gargle U.
Duh!!!!!
Bill2, have you read any of the crap your drinking buddies have spewed out my way? They don't want my faith as an answer.mthey want SCIENCE.
If anyone is interested in knowing the truth, read Michael Behe's books. Pretty impressive if you ask me. Hugh Ross is good too.
Have a great day, BBI haters. (You know who you are.)