It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does hydrogen turn into people?

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
And not only that, but your getting off on the idea that insulting me is going to make me stop arguing these point's. Think again.


Boy... you don't know me at all...

I antagonize you to keep you here.




posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
Wouldn't be constrained by it entirely depending upon the condition's it lived in. The question is very valid. In order for this universe to have been designed you must also prove that there was indeed a designer.

Boy... did I call that one or what? I thought maybe you wouldn't post the ones I pointed out... but man, you really go for this regurgitation stuff, huh?


You assume spacetime and time itself didn't exist prior to the universe. Fact is, we DO NOT KNOW the condition's prior to the big bang. Space and time could have very well always existed in some other form and model of physics that we haven't even concieved of yet, allowing for the natural birth of a universe. Thing is we do not know. Science doesn't even claim to know what the condition's were, all science is doing is trying to discover what those condition's possibly were, and there are a few model's floating around that do fit with observable prediction's within our universe.


I assume nothing. This what the BBT says. Spacetime was created via the BB. Look it up. Argue this with the physicists, not me

YOu've also got a bright career directing traffic waiting for you in addition to the boy band thing. Your handwaving skills are top notch.


What does ID have? Nothing. Literally nothing of it's own, but more and more of this BS IC garbage, which some get's debunked, and some we simply don't fully understand yet.

Now you see... I probably should have put something in re: you ranting about how 'ID has nothing' whatever that means. If I was really smart... I would have seen this one coming. It's been a consistent theme of yours throughout.


Thing's we do not fully understand yet is not evidence of design. The ancient greek's did not understand the mechanics behind lightening, does this imply that lightening, from their understanding was indeed created by an angry god?

Nope


IDT is not scientific in the slightest respect,

Wrong... it's science on par with Darwinism... don't believe me... let's discuss it. Please... I'm begging you... let's compare the scientific worth of ID vs. ET... you can start...

Your move.


Not even a single theory of the nature behind the designer itself or theories for how the designer could even design such a complicated universe. No, the excuse is, we don't care about that, we're just going to attack concept's that science has no answer's to yet and claim that as our own evidence because we're unable to conclude our own theories and experiments.

I think this is great. Classic. Did you all see how he jammed this nature of the designer into this post twice. Man... I couldn't have predicted something so revolutionary. You probably CAN write some awesome pop songs.

This is great- a real lesson in redundancy.


And yes, those people were given the oppurtunity for grant's given if they provided proposals for actual research. They failed to show up and provide those proposal's, so enough of the woe is them not getting a grant

I see you've conveniently ignored my earlier response to this... that is in your infinite knowledge of grants



BS. Truth is, you haven't provided a single shred of this ID nonesense. You've been doing that same thing as the rest. Attack that which science hasn't answered yet. Very scientific.

Please. All I did was point out that the original post I responded to by you was complete BS, and it is. None of your ranting will change that. Since that initial post, we've accomplished pretty much nothing, as you obviously don't know enough about ID or ET to write intelligently about it. And pretty much all you and TS have done is whine.

This is of course perfectly demonstrated by your overly redundant ranting.

Of course you could prove me wrong be describing why evolutionary theory is science but ID isn't.

In fact I would revel in the opportunity.

Your turn.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 08:23 PM
link   


I see you've conveniently ignored my earlier response to this... that is in your infinite knowledge of grants


Ah yes ... what was it?




Quite simply accepting grant money from an institution whose stated goal is to reconcile science and religion is currently academic suicide.


But you believe in it so much. No, not just believe, you think you know it's correct! So, if your given a chance to PROVE the damn thing, why not take that chance? What's wrong with the ID folk ... afraid they might not be able to find any evidence in it? You stated ...




I'm sure Behe, Dembski, and other would LOVE to be able to get a grant to study this stuff...


They were GIVEN the chance for a grant IF they submitted proposals for actual research. They didn't, and they didn't even show. They're already writing book's on the subject, so for them to get a grant to prove what they preach is not academic suicide for them. They are already trying to say they have evidence for it! If it mean academic suicide, they wouldn't even be trying to prove the damn thing.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   
I suggest that everyone get back to the topic and discuss it and NOT the personalities, assets and liabilities of each other.
Please, let's keep this debate civil and respectful



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
But you believe in it so much. No, not just believe, you think you know it's correct! So, if your given a chance to PROVE the damn thing, why not take that chance? What's wrong with the ID folk ... afraid they might not be able to find any evidence in it? You stated ...

I never said "I believe in it so much..." I simply refuse to let the ignorant misrepresent something they're clearly unqualified to comment on.

I already told you my reasons for never applying for such a grant... let me try again: ACADEMIC SUICIDE.

Why would I sacrifice my reputation as a scientist, my position in research community, the respect of current grant reviewers for what in reality amounts to a paltry sum.

You obviously don't know much about doing research, but $3 million isn't much distributed for a grant offering. The Foundation isn't even offering grants for FY 2006 from what I can tell.

To repeat: I would never risk my reputation in the scientific community for some fly by night funds that may or may not be available in the future. Once you take that money... you're history in the science community.



I'm sure Behe, Dembski, and other would LOVE to be able to get a grant to study this stuff...


As for why Behe or Dembski didn't apply for this grant, I can't say... Though I probably shouldn't have included Dembski in there... he's probably content enough writing books. But I can't speak for Behe... but irrespective of this grant Behe has a research program of his own.

Furthermore, Behe has recently published in Protein Science... so obviously he has funding from somewhere irrespective of this grant. So Behe IS working on ID based research, this templeton grant, notwithstanding.


They were GIVEN the chance for a grant IF they submitted proposals for actual research. They didn't, and they didn't even show.

Ummm... yeah like I said... Behe does have research program... actually his primary research program isn't really related to ID... I think it's DNA structure stuff.

So... that's a possible reason... maybe ID is just his hobby... I don't know... I've not talked to him in a number of years.


They're already writing book's on the subject, so for them to get a grant to prove what they preach is not academic suicide for them.

Baloney. Dembski's research program at Baylor was scrapped, and he was more or less removed from the institute that he started.

Mike Behe has lost the respect of a large part of the science community and the only thing that really keeps him going is the fact that he's tenured and is granted a certain amount of job security. Mike Behe will never be taken seriously again by a large number of researchers who've probably never even read his stuff. He's shunned even within his own department at Lehigh.

What's your definition of academic suicide?


They are already trying to say they have evidence for it!

Baloney. They don't say they have evidence of it. They say that certain evidences are suggestive of design. Big difference.


If it mean academic suicide, they wouldn't even be trying to prove the damn thing.

Sorry, you're wrong. Obviously their support for ID greatly affected their careers.

BTW, What ever happened to our discussion about the scientific validity of ID vs. Darwinism?

What about the enthalpic, entropic, and stereochemical constraints that preclude the formation of any biological polymer in the absence of enzymes?

What about the very simple question I asked re: the ATP synthase and hydroelectric dam?

By not addressing these relevant issue, and continuing to obfuscate them with irrelevant issue, you're not doing the anti-ID crowd any favors.

The astonishing this is that you don't know anything about ID. You've not read any of the stuff, you don't understand the basic principles of the theory. The closest you've ever come to reading about ID objectively is reading a refutation of Behe or Dembski. What makes you think you can refute a topic intelligently from such a position?

You might not like what I have to say, but at least none of it's BS...

unlike the comments that drew me into this thread in the first place.

So... your choice... in an effort to get this thread back to something resembling and O & C topic, which topic that you've otherwise ignored thus far would you like to discuss?

[edit by mattison0922 inspired by skippy
]


[edit on 2-3-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   
DTOM,

My apologies... the above post was started prior to your friendly advice.

My apologies for being.... over the top...



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922

Wrong... it's science on par with Darwinism... don't believe me... let's discuss it. Please... I'm begging you... let's compare the scientific worth of ID vs. ET... you can start...


Actually Mattison that's where you get it wrong. Intelligent design is not science on par with darwinism. ID proponents testified in court that what it really is about is redifing science to include supernatural explanations.

Let's look into what went down at this trial.


en.wikipedia.org...

Kenneth R. Miller, a biology professor from Brown University and noted author and commentator opposed to the intelligent design and creationist movements, was the first witness. He testified as an expert witness that "Intelligent design is not a testable theory and as such is not generally accepted by the scientific community." And that while the idea of intelligent design is not subject to falsification, many claims made by intelligent-design advocates have been falsified. Asked what the harm is in reading the statement, Miller gave a two-fold response. 1) "[I]t falsely undermines the scientific status of evolutionary theory and gives students a false understanding of what theory actually means." And 2) "as a person of faith who was blessed with two daughters, who raised both of my daughters in the church, and had they been given an education in which they were explicitly or implicitly forced to choose between God and science, I would have been furious, because I want my children to keep their religious faith."


Here is what Behe ended up admitting during the trial, which ultimately destroyed his credibility to the court.


www.seattleweekly.com...


That no peer-reviewed scientific journal has published research supportive of intelligent design's claims.

That Behe's own book was not, as he had claimed, peer reviewed.

That Behe himself criticizes the science presented as supporting intelligent design in instructional material created for that purpose.

That intelligent design seems plausible and reasonable to inquirers in direct proportion to their belief or nonbelief in God.

And that the basic arguments for evidence of purposeful design in nature are essentially the same as those adduced by the Christian apologist Rev. William Paley (1743–1805) in his 1802 Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected From the Appearances of Nature, where he sums up his observations of the complexity of life in the ringing words, "The marks of design are too strong to be got over. Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person is GOD."




ID seems to be only supported by people associated with the Discovery Institute.

www.discovery.org...


www.seattleweekly.com...

he Web site of the Center for Science and Culture, as it is known now (www.discovery.org/csc), describes the list of fellows as "including biologists, biochemists, chemists, physicists, philosophers and historians of science, and public policy and legal experts, many of whom also have affiliations with colleges and universities." This list avoids mentioning that only seven fellows hold advanced degrees in biological sciences, while 13 profess philosophy and/or theology at such religiously oriented institutions of higher learning as Biola College in Los Angeles, Messiah College of Gratham, Pa., and Billy Graham's alma mater, Wheaton College, in Wheaton, Ill.




This group is definitely religious based. And the famous "wedge" document that was distributed by the printshop they went to shows ID for what it truly is.


www.infidels.org...

"The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."


Emphasis mine.

Obviously they pretend it's science, but in fact it is nothing but thinly veiled neo-creationism, designed to bring christianity into science.


Theories that need an all powerful being to accomplish something are not scientific. Irreducible complexity attempts to show that things are too complex to happen naturally. While they attempt to scientifically show this as true, it remains a fallacy. It is unscientific to say that since we can't figure out how it happened, that it required some sort of supernatural agent.


It's interesting that ID proponents like to use Dawkins as a source for saying things look designed. Here is what Dawkins has to say about it.


www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk...

"Never say, and never take seriously anyone who says, 'I cannot believe that so-and-so could have evolved by gradual selection.' I have dubbed this kind of fallacy 'the Argument from Personal Incredulity.' Time and again, it has proven the prelude to an intellectual banana-skin experience." Richard Dawkins - River out of Eden



So maybe the Discovery Institute should stop saying Irreducible Complexity and call it what it really is. Personal Incredulity.


And I'm sorry Mattison, but there have been no peer-reviewed papers on ID published. The single one that was, has since been retracted by the journal that published it.


ncseweb.org/resources


Compared with several thousand papers on evolution, the combined searches produced only 37 citations containing the keyword "intelligent design." A closer look at those 37 references suggests that none reports scientific research using intelligent design as a biological theory. "Intelligent Design" popped up most frequently in the index with the broadest range of topics, the Expanded Academic Index. Of the 30 articles, 12 were articles on computer software or hardware, eight were on architectural or engineering design, two were on advertising art, and one was on literature. The remaining seven were about biology; five were discussions of the debate over using Pandas by various school boards, and two were comments on Michael Behe's (1996) book in a Christian magazine.




IC is not science, it is a cop out to provide a wedge for mixing religion and science. A logical fallacy, as pointed out by H. Allen Orr.


www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk...

"Behe's colossal mistake is that, in rejecting these possibilities, he concludes that no Darwinian solution remains. But one does. It is this: An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required."


mod edit to shorten link

[edit on 2-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Actually Mattison that's where you get it wrong. Intelligent design is not science on par with darwinism. ID proponents testified in court that what it really is about is redifing science to include supernatural explanations.

Leftbehind, thanks for you post.

I will address it at length sometime tomorrow... shutting down for the night.

BTW... science isn't defined by peer review, or the courts.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Thank you Mattison I look forward to your post, it's about time I came back to the origins forum. I've spent way too much time posting about 9-11.

And while science is not defined by courts or peer-review, neither is it defined by the Discovery Institute, Behe or Dembski.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Thank you Mattison I look forward to your post, it's about time I came back to the origins forum. I've spent way too much time posting about 9-11.

And while science is not defined by courts or peer-review, neither is it defined by the Discovery Institute, Behe or Dembski.


Absolutely agreed.

I happen to have a few minutes before my wife gets out of the shower.

Science isn't defined by the DI, Behe or Dembski, for sure.

Perhaps we can agree about what does define science among ourselves. Let's start there shall we.
  1. Should be able to form testable hypotheses.
    1. Hypotheses should seek positive results (generally this goes without saying, but you can never be too sure on ATS

  2. Should be able to make predictions.
  3. Should be parsimonious.
  4. Must operate within the realm of methodological naturalism.


Please feel free to comment on these, and add your own. Once we've established a clear definition, we can move on from there, agreed?

BTW, your post is a refreshing alternative from what we usually see here in O & C.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Thank you Mattison I look forward to your post, it's about time I came back to the origins forum. I've spent way too much time posting about 9-11.


Welcome back man... it is about time.


Boy you're going from 9/11 (Howard the lone gunman now?) to origins... nope no stress here; one big happy family




And while science is not defined by courts or peer-review, neither is it defined by the Discovery Institute, Behe or Dembski.


Agreed all around right of the bat. This is gonna be lovely....


Originally posted by LeftBehind
.....Intelligent design is not science on par with darwinism. ID proponents testified in court that what it really is about is redifing science to include supernatural explanations.

Let's look into what went down at this trial.


en.wikipedia.org...

Kenneth R. Miller, a biology professor from Brown University and noted author and commentator opposed to the intelligent design and creationist movements, was the first witness. He testified as an expert witness that "Intelligent design is not a testable theory and as such is not generally accepted by the scientific community." And that while the idea of intelligent design is not subject to falsification, many claims made by intelligent-design advocates have been falsified. Asked what the harm is in reading the statement, Miller gave a two-fold response. 1) "[I]t falsely undermines the scientific status of evolutionary theory and gives students a false understanding of what theory actually means." And 2) "as a person of faith who was blessed with two daughters, who raised both of my daughters in the church, and had they been given an education in which they were explicitly or implicitly forced to choose between God and science, I would have been furious, because I want my children to keep their religious faith."


Not to split hairs here LB, but it's easy to refute a claim when you're framing your opponents position for them. Miller states "many claims made by intelligent-design advocates have been falsified", do you know specifically which claims he's talking about here? Not dening his claim just curious as to which claims/advocates he's refrencing, thanks.

I don't want to hi-jack this thread topic re: 'naturalistic origins' with too much Dover stuff... But i have read the decision and would be willing to get into it with ya if you'd like to start a thread (don't think there's much in the way of an actual discussion on this around here outside of Nygdan's ATSNN story from when the decision came down.) Besides those 9/11 guys already convinced you bombs brought down those buildings... what else you got to do?


Not ignoring the rest of your post LB just that i don't wanna hijack the thread topic... wasn't intended for me anyway, sorry Matt.

See ya 'round LB... we'll indoctrinate you yet.

-Rren



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   
She does take a long shower...


Originally posted by LeftBehind
Actually Mattison that's where you get it wrong. Intelligent design is not science on par with darwinism. ID proponents testified in court that what it really is about is redifing science to include supernatural explanations.

Okay... first point of contention... supernatural explanations are by definition not testable, and not tested for. So you're right... testing for supernatural explanations isn't scientific. ID doesn't attempt to do this. It test for evidence of design.

Testing for evidence of design certainly has its precedents in science, including archaeology and the SETI project. The latter is under no obligation to reveal info re: the source of design, why is ID held to this standard.

Second point of contention... Miller states that ID isn't testable. I disagree. I think ID IS testable. I've even proposed experiments here in the threads that will yield positive quantifiable results.

Furthermore, these trials deal with the teaching of ID in schools, something that I am on the record as being against. Science cirriculum should not be politicized for ANY purpose, religious or otherwise.

Next issue... we've already established that peer-review doesn't define science... furthermore, I have a post somewhere that describes in detail how peer review can inhibit new ideas coming to fruition... am having a tough time finding it now... will keep looking though.

I say good for Behe for criticizing instructional material designed to teach ID... the theory is no where near developed enough, nor well enough accepted by the scientific community to be in the classroom. I support this.. I am surprised you don't. If nothing else, it shows that at least Behe can be objective about the evidence... he isn't pro-ID under all circumstances as this clearly demonstrates.

I certainly am probably in the minority, but I was a hard core atheist until I went to grad school. My support for ID is a result of my science education, not due to a lack of it.



ID seems to be only supported by people associated with the Discovery Institute.

Hmmm... interesting, as I am not associated with the DI... I maintain affiliations with a State University.

www.discovery.org...

This group is definitely religious based. And the famous "wedge" document that was distributed by the printshop they went to shows ID for what it truly is.


As you've clearly stated, science isn't defined by the DI. And despite being a significant think tank for DI. The DI doesn't speak for IDT. IDT is an entity that existed before the DI, and would continue to exist were the DI to meet it's demise.

The scientific merit of IDT has nothing to do with the wedge document. The scientific merit of ID is based on it's ability to fufill the soon to be described roles attributed to a science.

Obviously they pretend it's science, but in fact it is nothing but thinly veiled neo-creationism, designed to bring christianity into science.

Christianity is not scientific, and thus can't be brought into science.


Theories that need an all powerful being to accomplish something are not scientific. Irreducible complexity attempts to show that things are too complex to happen naturally. While they attempt to scientifically show this as true, it remains a fallacy. It is unscientific to say that since we can't figure out how it happened, that it required some sort of supernatural agent.

ID doesn't need an all powerful being, that's why it leaves out the issue of the designer. IC doesn't do this. IC is a hypothesis based on the fact that there is no evidence to suggest certain things in biology arose naturally. Like it or not it's true. No reasonable precursors to photosynthetic proteins have been described, there are no reasonable versions of how a 10 step pathway like glycolysis could have arisen step by step.

yes... I am familiar with the TO archive.

Gotta go... showers over.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Damn, you are lame, mattison.

Parfaitin? That's one of the corniest things I've seen on this site. Really. I guess you thought that was "hip" or "cool."
Stick to that slick ID and please, PLEASE don't try to fit in with "our video game, TV ruined generation."




posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Thanks Rren, I think that yours and mattisons post perfectly illustrate why I'd rather be here arguing.

Both of you have a lot of info to contribute and we all can heatedly debate while still being respectful. If anything most of the one-post-craziness and name calling will be comeing from people on my side.

The trial quote I came across while doing just general refresher reading for the last post. I will have to look into exactly which arguments and advocates he was refering to. Although a quick guess would be the ones who push ID as religious science without hiding it.

www.icr.org...

Groups like these push ID without understanding any of the concepts, and are only using it to promote their religious views.

The fact that Behe and the DI didn't want the trial to even happen, shows to me that they might in fact have credibility.

The only question is what their objections stemmed from.

If they knew it would further harm any meaningfull research that might come from ID, then it gives them more credibility in my eyes.

If however they were only against it because it was too much, too soon for their "wedge" plan to work, then we know that they are trying to redefine science to fit their religious views, and their all agenda driven not research driven.

I will look into who and what Miller was referring to. It's a long transcript.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Oh.

DTOM, I didn't see you step in and referee before I posted. My fault on that one, but I really had to get that one out.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922Testing for evidence of design certainly has its precedents in science, including archaeology and the SETI project. The latter is under no obligation to reveal info re: the source of design, why is ID held to this standard.


True, but the difference is in what they are testing for design. Artifacts, structures and radio signals being designed is a far cry from biological organisms being designed. We know very much about the mechanisms for designing artifacts and radio signals, we know almost nothing about the mechanisms that would intelligently design photosynthesis or flagellum. Without such knowledge it makes it hard to claim that something was designed because we can't imagine how it happened through any other means.


Certain facets of ID may be testable, but the designer and the mechanism for ID is certainly not testable. I still don't buy the testing for IC, but thats just my opinion.


Peer-review is not necesary for something to be scientific, but it certainly helps in giving it credence. ID has been around for a while and while it has a religiuos stigma attached to it, it still seems strange that no paper has passed peer review. So it could be severe bias that keeps ID papers out of journals, but it could also be that the ideas presented in the papers can't pass peer review because they are unscientific and mostly philosophy. The lack of such papers can work both ways.



Originally posted by mattison0922
I say good for Behe for criticizing instructional material designed to teach ID... the theory is no where near developed enough, nor well enough accepted by the scientific community to be in the classroom. I support this.. I am surprised you don't. If nothing else, it shows that at least Behe can be objective about the evidence... he isn't pro-ID under all circumstances as this clearly demonstrates.


Well this is only partly true. He criticized the material while being cross examined as he was testifying as an expert for intelligent design being taught in schools. It's not like he wrote an essay or book criticizing the material. Being under oath can bring out objectivity that might not otherwise be there.


On the DI.

That came out the wrong way, obviously not all ID proponents come from the DI, but most of the well known public propenents have ties to the discovery institute.


IC is a hypothesis based on the fact that there is no evidence to suggest certain things in biology arose naturally. Like it or not it's true. No reasonable precursors to photosynthetic proteins have been described, there are no reasonable versions of how a 10 step pathway like glycolysis could have arisen step by step.


Yet.


[edit on 2-3-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by melatonin

Well... I see we have some time to 'play' again... welcome back.

Behe could be wrong about IC of every system, and it wouldn't necessarily mean that ID was wrong per se. Things change in science... I don't see everyone freaking out that a swimming mammal was found millions of years before ET says it should be there.

Interestingly enough, I believe it was you who recently said such evidence, admittedly a more extreme circumstance than this, but this variety of evidence would disprove Darwinism.

What does this do to the theory of common descent, and all of our currently existing assumptions about mammals?


heheh, nice to speak to you again Mattison. Hope your research is going well. I just don't have time to spend 3hrs forming replies


Well of course Behe could be wrong and Dawkins may be wrong about genes being the sole unit of heredity. But I do feel Behe needs to clarify this - Miller uses the blood coag refutation argument consistently. According to Miller, there is even a parrot fish that lacks three components of the blood cascade...

But the jurrasic "beaver" is not considered a true mammal - it's a docodont, which is mammaliaform. So no big issue for ET.

These have been known for over a century from teeth etc. All it means is that mammaliaforms were more diverse, larger, and less marginal than was previously known (e.g. repenomamus).

Now if we found a cambrian platypus, ET may be in trouble...


[edit on 3-3-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 05:08 AM
link   


No reasonable precursors to photosynthetic proteins have been described, there are no reasonable versions of how a 10 step pathway like glycolysis could have arisen step by step.



This in no way implies a designer. All it show's is we haven't discovered everything. We all know science isn't a wham bam thank ya m'am sort of thing that can explain every single problem at the snap of a finger. All your showing is another example of so called 'evidence' of sort's for design through LACK of knowledge of the system itself. Can IDer's show undeniably that any of the example's they've given are truelly of design and not just lack of knowledge of the system? Complexity in nature is not an uncommon thing.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Produkt
This in no way implies a designer. All it show's is we haven't discovered everything. We all know science isn't a wham bam thank ya m'am sort of thing that can explain every single problem at the snap of a finger. All your showing is another example of so called 'evidence' of sort's for design through LACK of knowledge of the system itself. Can IDer's show undeniably that any of the example's they've given are truelly of design and not just lack of knowledge of the system? Complexity in nature is not an uncommon thing.

Boy, you sure do have a penchant for quoting out of context don't you? If you'd bother to read my post, you'd see that I didn't say it implied evidence for a designer.

The quote in its entirety states: "IC doesn't do this. IC is a hypothesis based on the fact that there is no evidence to suggest certain things in biology arose naturally. Like it or not it's true. No reasonable precursors to photosynthetic proteins have been described, there are no reasonable versions of how a 10 step pathway like glycolysis could have arisen step by step. "

So you've done a marvelous job refuting something I never said.

Remember that advice I gave about familiarizing yourself with things before refuting them? You might want to give it a try. It's been successful for generations of people.



posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
Not ignoring the rest of your post LB just that i don't wanna hijack the thread topic... wasn't intended for me anyway, sorry Matt.


No apologies necessary... you're always welcome to address any comments directed towards me. :ccol:




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join