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.

 

The Top Ten Myths About Evolution

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Tsk tsk Madness must we argue semantics? To accept science you must “believe” that the scientists are doing their job right. But don't worry I “believe” in science too.




posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Tsk tsk Madness must we argue semantics? To accept science you must “believe” that the scientists are doing their job right. But don't worry I “believe” in science too.


no, i trust that scientists are going to do their job right, simply so they don't get ridiculed and/or fired.

i just trust that people are worried about the future of their carreers



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 11:22 PM
link   
I was using the word in a generalized way. Belief, acceptance, supporting a theory or however you want to say it they all equal out to mean the same thing.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Number one and two and four on the myth list.

Alot of people, too many imo, hold ionto those two misconceptions. There are plenty of people who don't understand genetics at all and assume evolution is some magical instantaneuos change from one species into another, hence the man from monkey scenario.

The other issue, yes, evolution is a theory. The theory being, HOW does evolution work. Many people try to equate evolution with HOW did life first arise. We all know gravity exist's. We don't see religous people disputing this, or atleast I haven't seen any arguments from the religous sector. Yet we don't know HOW gravity works, or what it even is really. We have a ton of theories about it though. It's the same thing with evolution. We know it occurs, we've witnessed it, we can see the transitionary fossils, we can experiment with it in the lab, etc. We just don't know HOW it works.

The IDist's like to hold onto and argue using our first concepts of how evolution works, survival of the fittest. These arguments are all I've really seen. This isn't what evolutionary theory is anymore. Yes, it's still a PART of evolutionary theory, but the theory now entails so so so much more then survival of the fittest. It doesn't even just entail genetics. It's an complicated process, one we're just starting to really come to terms with. As best we can of course.

The last issue, no one can really say anything about 'origins'. Specifically how the universe came to be. We can't observe what happened prior to our observable universe comming into existance. There are alot of theories that try to make somehwat of an attempt to answer this age-old question, but the truth is, no one can ever really answer it. The religous sector, including IDism claim to already have that answer. The creator/designer. All without proving that such exist's. We know the big bang happened. We know there was an inflationary event, we know we're in a secondary inflationary event. No, we don't know HOW the big bang happened or HOW inflation works exactly. Too many morons want the answers and they want them NOW NOW NOW. If they can't obtain the answer's, they'll make one up that seem's 'right' to them. People are too arrogant. They HAVE to be know it alls. It's to hard to just say, I DON'T KNOW or I don't have an answer to that question, let's find the answer. Arrogant, ignorant little twerps.

I was talking to someone yesterday. He used to be religous, but has since 'rebelled' against his religion at an early age. He decided to hold onto the belief that a supernatural diety exist's. Nearly all of his arguments were based upon old theories that have been disproven already. Ignorance in today's world is so abundant, it's crazy. People are simply unwilling to learn or stay on top with current discoveries. Learning appears to be a chore for people today, more so with religous people. Instead, the ignorant come out with terms like creationism science and 'evolve' that into a new term called Intelligent design. They use flawed arguments, flawed models, ignorant theories based upon old ideas to argue their point. If people just took the time to learn and stay ontop of current knowledge or hell, took an more active role in discoveries, the world would probably be much better off.

Ignorance has played such an active role in the causation of wars and hate crimes. This board is about denying ignorance, and yet the main majority of poster's do the exact opposite. They thrive on ignorance. They eat ignorance for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Sometimes as a fat laden snack in between meal's as well. Yes, I sound "insulting" to the ignorant. To the people who wish to belong to something greater. To the people who can't cope with reality or the people who are unwilling to learn. Boo effing hoo. If your willing to spout ignorance as a lifestyle, then don't complain about being insulted or offended.

Yea, so /end rant



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Number one and two and four on the myth list.

Alot of people, too many imo, hold ionto those two misconceptions. There are plenty of people who don't understand genetics at all and assume evolution is some magical instantaneuos change from one species into another, hence the man from monkey scenario.


You understand genetics? It's a tough one for me, most people actually. What are your particular credentials in this area? Could you lay out the case for universal common ancestry via genetics for me/us?



The other issue, yes, evolution is a theory. The theory being, HOW does evolution work. Many people try to equate evolution with HOW did life first arise....
It's the same thing with evolution. We know it occurs, we've witnessed it, we can see the transitionary fossils, we can experiment with it in the lab, etc. We just don't know HOW it works.


(emphasis mine)Which part is theory? Which part hypothesis? Natural selection/adaption, gradualism, punctuated evo, EAM, universal common ancestry, micro, macro? What is the part that happens as emperical fact?



The IDist's like to hold onto and argue using our first concepts of how evolution works, survival of the fittest. These arguments are all I've really seen.


Specifically which IDists and which arguments?



Too many morons want the answers and they want them NOW NOW NOW. If they can't obtain the answer's, they'll make one up that seem's 'right' to them. People are too arrogant. They HAVE to be know it alls. It's to hard to just say, I DON'T KNOW or I don't have an answer to that question, let's find the answer. Arrogant, ignorant little twerps.


(emphasis mine) Well you've finally managed to defend one of your arguments
Many people involved in this debate are indeed arrogant, ego-centric and immature.



I was talking to someone yesterday. He used to be religous, but has since 'rebelled' against his religion at an early age. He decided to hold onto the belief that a supernatural diety exist's. Nearly all of his arguments were based upon old theories that have been disproven already.


Got an example of these old, disproven theories your friend believed to show a supernatural deity exists?


If your willing to spout ignorance as a lifestyle, then don't complain about being insulted or offended.


Keep those words close my friend.

[edit on 11-6-2006 by Rren]



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Just a couple of observations for you folks about the ATS member formerly known as Produkt.

Here's an example of a well thought out opinion


Produkt states at 01:26pm on 10-6-2006


Originally posted by The ATS member formerly known as Produkt
I personally don't understand IDism ... Irriducibly Complex, Specified Complexity etc .. The SC is a new one for me,


So Apparently, as of 1:26PM, produkt has never heard of specified complexity.

Then exactly 30 minutes later, produkt comes up with:

Originally posted by The ATS member formerly known as Produkt
Ah ok, after a search on the 'dreaded' wikipedia, finally found out that Specified Complexity is definatly a new IDist concept created by the beloved Dembski.

Here's the link to the article, more specificly the criticism's. en.wikipedia.org...


Dembski's calculations show how a simple smooth function (such as y = x?) cannot gain information, he therefore concludes that there must be a designer to obtain CSI. However, natural selection has a branching mapping from one to many (replication) followed by pruning mapping of the many back down to a few (selection). These increasing and reductional mappings were not modeled by Dembski. In other words, Dembski's calculations do not model birth and death. This basic flaw in his modeling renders all of Dembski's subsequent calculations and reasoning in No Free Lunch irrelevant because his basic model does not reflect reality. Since the basis of No Free Lunch relies on this flawed argument, the entire thesis of the book collapses.[21]


Can't argue there really. Would be interesting to see an attempt though.


It's obvious from the postings and references posted, Produkt went from complete ignorance about an issue, SC, and has it 'debunked' in exactly 30 minutes.

What does this tell us about The ATS member formerly known as Produkt:
  1. He's not interested in actually objectively evaluating theories, only in supporting that which he already believes.
  2. When he comes across something that disagrees with his world view, instead of actually reading and evaluating the theory for himself, he looks for someone who's already debunked it.
  3. Produkt states we "[c]an't argue there really." Well how would he know, he's not even read what SC actually is, only a 'debunking' on wikipedia. Given this, produkt actually doesn't know whether or not this 'debunking' holds any water. Why doesn't he know this, because he hasn't actually read the theory, just a single rebuttal.
  4. If produkt was really serious in wondering if "Dembski really serious or does he just pretend to be so ridiculously stupid," one way he could find out would be to actually read something by Dembski, but of course as number 1 in this list clearly demonstrates, that won't happen.


I do find it entertaining that someone who might have taken a college class or two calls a professor with 2 Ph.D.'s 'stupid' because he doesn't agree with him. It might be reasonable to call Dembski stupid if you'd read his stuff, but obviously the ATS member formerly known as Produkt hasn't done this.

Keep a close eye on The ATS member formerly known as Produkt... lots of fluff and calling things 'stupid,' but no actual evaluation, just a post that keeps him comfortably in his world view... the mark of a true charlatan indeed.


[edit on 11-6-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Rather then attacking me personally, attack the critique I exerpted. I'm not sure what your infatuation is with me, nor your need to slander me at all cost's. Let's not talk about maturity if we ourselve's can't act mature. Practice what you preach, if you don't, it just show's your own character.

As for the critique I experted, it doesn't take a simpleton to understand that if you can't correctly model reality in your arguments, then your argument's are invalid. Dembski appearently failed to do as such and logically, this make's his statements irrelevent. What specific point's are needed to be argued with a flawed model from the get-go? This make's no logical sense at all.

The basic tenent of IDism hasn't even been answered. This being the creator. It's total pure BS that IDism doesn't have to answer this question. We can't sit here and say that it's 100% fact that the universe and all life therein was 'designed' by an almighty unseen creator. How many IDist's have peered beyond the fabric of the observable universe to obtain this answer? Yea, that's what I thought. None. No one ever will.




You understand genetics? It's a tough one for me, most people actually. What are your particular credentials in this area? Could you lay out the case for universal common ancestry via genetics for me/us?


Nope, not an expert, but I do understand enough of it to know it's alot more complex then Dembski and Behe would like people to believe and that it play's a large part in evolutionary processes.




(emphasis mine)Which part is theory? Which part hypothesis? Natural selection/adaption, gradualism, punctuated evo, EAM, universal common ancestry, micro, macro? What is the part that happens as emperical fact?


Today's main issue with evolution is HOW it works, as I've already stated. We already know it happens. People would rather it be some mystical magical father like deity.




Specifically which IDists and which arguments?


Nearly all I've seen. You even posted a link to a video not long ago for me to view. And I do remember asking you specifically WHY the video stayed upon natural selection ONLY as the basis for it's arguments when it's known that evolutionary theory entail's so so so much more then the originally conceptualized natural selection theory. You posted that video in seemingly a 'haha' mannerism. As if you 'won' something. I don't recall you ever answering back, can't even remember which thread it was now.



(emphasis mine) Well you've finally managed to defend one of your arguments Many people involved in this debate are indeed arrogant, ego-centric and immature.


Yes, and we only need to look towards the folk who feel the need to personally attack and slander to see my point. Rather then attacking the one critique that I have posted, which isn't the only one I've read thus far. Those type of people would rather attack me personally. Hell, before I've even entered a thread they've already done so. I know of atleast four so far that Matt has felt the need to say something about me personally. This is the only one I've actually bothered to join in on. Look at the attempt's at intelligent conversation comming from his end. Tell me who's acting immature and arrogant.



Got an example of these old, disproven theories your friend believed to show a supernatural deity exists?


The main one he used was "life is eternal". I asked him what he meant, and he proceeded to talk about the 'big crunch'. It's already been proven that the universe is flat within a 2% margin of error and won't be going crunch.



Keep those words close my friend.


Everyone should keep these words close. Especially the arrogant wannabe know it alls who worship an unseen and unprovable creator, who use flawed models to argue their point's.

On another note, did find it funny how Dembski made use of an urban legend. His credibility is already shot, kinda sucks for him that he'd dirty his name even more. Gotta give him credit though for being a damn persistant fighter.

Matt,

Try acting abit more civil and attack the critique, not the messenger of the critique. There's no need for your continuos need to attack me personally, even in thread's that I choose to not bother posting in due to your need to slander me. The only reason I bother this time is pretty much to say. Enough is enough. Grow up and act mature and civil. Stop calling me out every chance you get. It's tired and old now. it was cute the first time, but enough is enough. You've gotta grow a pair sometime and be a man for once.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prot0n
As for the critique I experted, it doesn't take a simpleton to understand that if you can't correctly model reality in your arguments, then your argument's are invalid. Dembski appearently failed to do as such and logically, this make's his statements irrelevent. What specific point's are needed to be argued with a flawed model from the get-go? This make's no logical sense at all.


I'm sorry I must've missed the critique, where was it again? Which "flawed model" are you speaking of? I understand you're making this up as you go but humor me, thanks.



The basic tenent of IDism hasn't even been answered. This being the creator. It's total pure BS that IDism doesn't have to answer this question. We can't sit here and say that it's 100% fact that the universe and all life therein was 'designed' by an almighty unseen creator. How many IDist's have peered beyond the fabric of the observable universe to obtain this answer? Yea, that's what I thought. None. No one ever will.


Can't answer second order philosophical implications/ideas with the scientific method. The reason the 'designer' isn't/can't be identified is a very basic philosophy of science argument (ie, methodology) that you' d be familiar with had you actually ever read any ID literature.





Nope, not an expert, but I do understand enough of it to know it's alot more complex then Dembski and Behe would like people to believe and that it play's a large part in evolutionary processes.


Which Dembski and/or Behe comments are you speaking of specifically? You think that Behe, a biochemist (PhD), doesn't understand the role genetics play in evolutionary processes? Based on what? Be specific. The if you don't know I aint gonna tell ya is getting a little old... maybe it's just me. You'll notice most of the better (read informed) critics around here don't appreciate guys like you/argumentation like your's, any more than folks like me and Matt. Wonder why that is?





Today's main issue with evolution is HOW it works, as I've already stated. We already know it happens. People would rather it be some mystical magical father like deity.


You just can't help yourself can you? Some sort of Atheistic Tourettes Syndrome... *shrug*




Nearly all I've seen. You even posted a link to a video not long ago for me to view. And I do remember asking you specifically WHY the video stayed upon natural selection ONLY as the basis for it's arguments when it's known that evolutionary theory entail's so so so much more then the originally conceptualized natural selection theory. You posted that video in seemingly a 'haha' mannerism. As if you 'won' something. I don't recall you ever answering back, can't even remember which thread it was now.


I didn't respond back because I figured out who you are/were and that your questions were just bait from a troll... along with the lie when you said something like 'I'm new to all this' which was just more reason to ignore you imo. You obviously aren't familiar with ID source material but, you're certainly familiar with the critics talking points. I did not post it in a "haha mannerism" nor did I act as if I've won something (if you really want me to link to that post and expose yet another lie I will.)




Yes, and we only need to look towards the folk who feel the need to personally attack and slander to see my point. Rather then attacking the one critique that I have posted, which isn't the only one I've read thus far. Those type of people would rather attack me personally. Hell, before I've even entered a thread they've already done so. I know of atleast four so far that Matt has felt the need to say something about me personally. This is the only one I've actually bothered to join in on. Look at the attempt's at intelligent conversation comming from his end. Tell me who's acting immature and arrogant.


Guess he just don't like you, can't say I blame him though. *shrug* I say, to all interested, click a 'find posts' on our respectable mr. Prot0n and see for yourself who's arrogant and immature or pretending to know more than they do in order to fit in. Heck just look at the first post in this thread that I replied to... what was your critique again?



The main one he used was "life is eternal". I asked him what he meant, and he proceeded to talk about the 'big crunch'. It's already been proven that the universe is flat within a 2% margin of error and won't be going crunch.


What?? How on earth does an oscillating universe relate to "life is eternal?" Your "friend" believed it to be evidence of what exactly? I'd be willing to put up dollars to donuts you're making all this up. But please finish.




Everyone should keep these words close. Especially the arrogant wannabe know it alls who worship an unseen and unprovable creator, who use flawed models to argue their point's.

On another note, did find it funny how Dembski made use of an urban legend. His credibility is already shot, kinda sucks for him that he'd dirty his name even more. Gotta give him credit though for being a damn persistant fighter.


Did you want to actually provide sources or refutations for anything you've posted thus far? You've yet to supply one iota of information that wasn't only Prot0n's, largely uniformed, opinion. What models? What flaws? FYI you're ranting again... where's the beef??

Notice you skipped every opportunity to explain the gentics relevant to "ID vs Toe," neglected to name the emperical fact of evolution equal to Newton's Laws of Motion, Einstein's E=MC^2, or the speed of c (used that one in a rant that followed his first here.) Get your hand caught in the cookie jar did ya? You're "critique" is severely lacking all 'round... but yeah we get it. Seen it once or a hundred times before and expected nothing less.



Enough is enough. Grow up and act mature and civil. Stop calling me out every chance you get. It's tired and old now. it was cute the first time, but enough is enough. You've gotta grow a pair sometime and be a man for once.


Notice how the first sentence compares to the last, second, and I implore anybody who thinks this guy is informed on these issues or is some sort of objective, humble and sincere seeker of knowledge to use the 'find posts' feature. If you're real perceptive you can catch him, often, learning something in one thread (eg IC or oscillating universe) and then preceding, in short order mind you, to pop up in another thread passing his new (superficial) knowledge as the real deal with many ad hominums to make his point... interesting imho.

Ah well...

Mattison Goooose fraba my man goooose fraba. Why bother, he's just toooo good. His "critique" is untouchable, of course that's easy to do when you don't bother posting anything of substance.


*clutches Bible*
*falls to knees and looks to the sky*
Whyyyyyy!!!!
Damn you Prot0n!
*plop*

RIP ID you never saw him coming; shame.




[edit on 11-6-2006 by Rren]

(edit) Had to change dougnuts to donuts... that was bad, I don't even know a Doug.

[edit on 11-6-2006 by Rren]



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   
And here's that post exactly as is (some here may like the link so why not)

Refresher: Prot0n said:

You posted that video in seemingly a 'haha' mannerism. As if you 'won' something. I don't recall you ever answering back, can't even remember which thread it was now.


And here's the post:

Hi Prot0n,

I didn't realize you're such a new member here and am not sure if you can read the u2u I sent you (I know you can't reply until you have 20 posts i believe), if you didn't get it let me know. If you did get the u2u here's something else that will help to understand the basics of ID.

Thought that you, and other contributors and lurkers on this thread might be interested in downloading this video. Unlocking the Mystery of Life Right click---Save Target as [.ram file (8mb)] which is the short version (@30mins.) of a longer DVD by the same title found here. All the basics of the "ID -vs- ET" debate plus helps explain some of the ID concepts and history of OOL research.

Very informative show imo, caught it on tv a while back but didn't ever think to check if they have anything on the web for it... guess they do.


Enjoy guys and let me know what you think about it... Ok back to the Dembski papers, math... blah!!

Regards,
-Rren

[edit on 24-3-2006 by Rren]


HA ha... I won!
If you'll notice he's debunking, on the fly and blind mind you, while watching it... priceless.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   


I'm sorry I must've missed the critique, where was it again? Which "flawed model" are you speaking of? I understand you're making this up as you go but humor me, thanks.


It's the excerpted part in my post. It's on this same page so it shouldn't be to difficult to take the time to scroll up. It's one of many that I've read so far since yesterday on this issue.



Can't answer second order philosophical implications/ideas with the scientific method. The reason the 'designer' isn't/can't be identified is a very basic philosophy of science argument (ie, methodology) that you' d be familiar with had you actually ever read any ID literature.


So, the 'designer' in IDism is just a philosophical "idea" and not a provable case in point? I have read abit on IDism. I've read alot of the link's you've provided. Watched the video as well. Nothing touch's up on the 'designer' itself, this is the first instance I've really seen it defined as a philosophical idea though. The scientific methodology is just that. A method, nothing more, nothing less. The 'designer' appears to be something much more then a simple method. Not sure how you're trying to compare the two.



Which Dembski and/or Behe comments are you speaking of specifically? You think that Behe, a biochemist (PhD), doesn't understand the role genetics play in evolutionary processes? Based on what? Be specific. The if you don't know I aint gonna tell ya is getting a little old... maybe it's just me. You'll notice most of the better (read informed) critics around here don't appreciate guys like you/argumentation like your's, any more than folks like me and Matt. Wonder why that is?


What 'informed'? I can't name specifics off the top of my head, unless you wanna discuss the IC systems they constantly have been getting B-ed slapped with? The flagellum, the human eye, and the favorite mousetrap analogy.



You just can't help yourself can you? Some sort of Atheistic Tourettes Syndrome... *shrug*


*shrug* indeed.



I didn't respond back because I figured out who you are/were and that your questions were just bait from a troll... along with the lie when you said something like 'I'm new to all this' which was just more reason to ignore you imo. You obviously aren't familiar with ID source material but, you're certainly familiar with the critics talking points. I did not post it in a "haha mannerism" nor did I act as if I've won something (if you really want me to link to that post and expose yet another lie I will.)


Wasn't a lie really. I am still new to this whole IDism rubbish. The inquiry was serious, perhpas now you'd care to answer it? Why exactly did they play on natural selection only rather then the many many many other variable's in evolutionary theory? Why not attack climate change's as well? Why just natural selection or claiming something is to IC just to get B-ed slapped later with it?



Guess he just don't like you, can't say I blame him though. *shrug* I say, to all interested, click a 'find posts' on our respectable mr. Prot0n and see for yourself who's arrogant and immature or pretending to know more than they do in order to fit in. Heck just look at the first post in this thread that I replied to... what was your critique again?


Lol, I'll agree with the imature statment, arrogant is a so-so. Don't really pretend to know it all. In another thread I actually decided to start a trend for people here on ATS. Let's say I DON'T KNOW. Too many people want to have all the answer's, those are the arrogant people. Where's your designer?



What?? How on earth does an oscillating universe relate to "life is eternal?" Your "friend" believed it to be evidence of what exactly? I'd be willing to put up dollars to dougnuts you're making all this up. But please finish.


He didn't elaborate too much on it, so I'm not 100% sure exactly how he equate's it as such. Sort of like a universal reincarnation type thing. I'd be willing to post the log's on that particular point and with his permission I will do so.



Did you want to actually provide sources or refutations for anything you've posted thus far? You've yet to supply one iota of information that wasn't only Prot0n's, largely uniformed, opinion. What models? What flaws? FYI you're ranting again... where's the beef??


*points to the mousescroll button, the thing in the middle, look's like a wheel*



Notice you skipped every opportunity to explain the gentics relevant to "ID vs Toe," neglected to name the emperical fact of evolution equal to Newton's Laws of Motion, Einstein's E=MC^2, or the speed of c (used that one in a rant that followed his first here.) Get your hand caught in the cookie jar did ya? You're "critique" is severely lacking all 'round... but yeah we get it. Seen it once or a hundred times before and expected nothing less.


It's not my personal critique, hence the external link and excerpted quote.



Notice how the first sentence compares to the last, second, and I implore anybody who thinks this guy is informed on these issues or is some sort of objective, humble and sincere seeker of knowledge to use the 'find posts' feature. If you're real perceptive you can catch him, often, learning something in one thread (eg IC or oscillating universe) and then preceding, in short order mind you, to pop up in another thread passing his new (superficial) knowledge as the real deal with many ad hominums to make his point... interesting imho.


I've posted link's of critiques against IC before. I've never seen an answer to them. Flagellum, human eye, ad naseum. The 'oscillating universe' isn't even an idea I hold belief too either, let's not use word play in our slander compaigns. Nor do I claim to be informed, in fact, if I've reread this post and other's I've made correctly, I've claimed quite the opposite. Hence the reason for asking question's, such as why the video played on natural selection only. Or why IC keeps getting b-ed slapped everytime it claims something is IC. Or why do they refuse funding for research, etc etc.




Mattison Goooose fraba my man goooose fraba. Why bother, he's just toooo good. His "critique" is untouchable, of course that's easy to do when you don't bother posting anything of substance


lol, cute.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prot0n
Rather then attacking me personally, attack the critique I exerpted. I'm not sure what your infatuation is with me, nor your need to slander me at all cost's. Let's not talk about maturity if we ourselve's can't act mature. Practice what you preach, if you don't, it just show's your own character.

Sorry to break it to you, bud, but I'm not infatuated with you, nor is it slander for me to point out the fact that you are the ATS member formerly known as produkt.

I didn't mention maturity, nor do I claim to be the pinnacle of good online behavior. However, my discussions in this very thread with Nygdan, and others throughout ATS perfectly demonstrates my willingness and ability to discuss this in a rational and civil manner.

But none of this changes what I've stated. You aren't familiar enough with Dembski's work to be able to discuss a critique of this.

For the sake of argument I can give you the benefit of the doubt.

You wrote:

Dembski's calculations show how a simple smooth function (such as y = x?) cannot gain information, he therefore concludes that there must be a designer to obtain CSI. However, natural selection has a branching mapping from one to many (replication) followed by pruning mapping of the many back down to a few (selection). These increasing and reductional mappings were not modeled by Dembski. In other words, Dembski's calculations do not model birth and death. This basic flaw in his modeling renders all of Dembski's subsequent calculations and reasoning in No Free Lunch irrelevant because his basic model does not reflect reality. Since the basis of No Free Lunch relies on this flawed argument, the entire thesis of the book collapses.


It would appear that your source has misread Dembski. Dembski's calculations refer to the origin of biological information, not how the information can change once it is established. For your source to bring natural selection into the equation is essentially saying "biological information comes from pre-existing biological information. This does not address the arguments as described by Dembski. Surely you see the tautology in this.

[quote]oAs for the critique I experted, it doesn't take a simpleton to understand that if you can't correctly model reality in your arguments, then your argument's are invalid.
No, but it does take ensuring that the critique addresses an argument Dembski, which this doesn't appear to. Dembski has never said biological info can't generate biological info. If you were familiar with his arguments, you'd know this.


Dembski appearently failed to do as such and logically, this make's his statements irrelevent. What specific point's are needed to be argued with a flawed model from the get-go? This make's no logical sense at all.

Again, it helps to be familiar with the argument actually being 'refuted.' Please see all above comments.

Can you perhaps see the benefit of familiarizing yourself with both sides of the argument?


The basic tenent of IDism hasn't even been answered. This being the creator.

This isn't a tenet of ID. How many times do we have to go through this?


It's total pure BS that IDism doesn't have to answer this question. We can't sit here and say that it's 100% fact that the universe and all life therein was 'designed' by an almighty unseen creator. How many IDist's have peered beyond the fabric of the observable universe to obtain this answer? Yea, that's what I thought. None. No one ever will.

Produkt, ID doesn't have the answer as it makes no assumptions about the designer... for about the millionth time.

No one in ID is saying anything is 100% fact... another argument they never made.

With respect to your 'fabric' question: WTF are you talking about?





Yes, and we only need to look towards the folk who feel the need to personally attack and slander to see my point. Rather then attacking the one critique that I have posted, which isn't the only one I've read thus far.

Produkt, why do you insist on reading critiques. Would it kill you to spend $5 on a used book on Amazon and make an informed decision? Why do you feel the need to have other people do your thinking for you? Wouldn't you like to be able to say, yeah, I read Dembski's stuff, and I don't like it for this reason, this reason, and this reason. Instead you'd rather assume your position is correct, and go from there. Why is this?


Those type of people would rather attack me personally. Hell, before I've even entered a thread they've already done so. I know of atleast four so far that Matt has felt the need to say something about me personally.

Given that you don't really have a solid understanding of this stuff, there's not much to discuss here. What do you expect when you come on a forum, profess complete ignorance re: a topic, go and read an admitted one critique and proceed to call the author, a college professor with prof. with two Ph.D.'s and infinitely better understanding mathematics than you have and more or less anyone who supports his right to do what he pleases 'stupid.' You reap what you sow, produkt. What do you want me to say.

If you want to test my ability to post something civil and meaningful the post something that looks like you actually made an effort to think about this stuff.


This is the only one I've actually bothered to join in on. Look at the attempt's at intelligent conversation comming from his end. Tell me who's acting immature and arrogant.

Actually, Nygdan and I were having a great discussion for sometime... the conversation was going quite well in fact. And yes, I would encourage all to look at my posts in this thread. Exactly what I've been saying is true: You attempt to make a meaningful point and discuss things in a rational manner, then that's what you get back. If you want to come on and claim things are stupid from a perspective of nearly complete ignorance than expect to be called a charlatan.

In fact, in this very thread, I described myself - I believe as uncivil, confrontational, and adversarial, so the myth that I proclaim to be some mature, nice, easy to communicate with guy is officially debunked. I can be that way... please see above points for criteria.


Matt,

Try acting abit more civil and attack the critique,

Please see above.


not the messenger of the critique. There's no need for your continuos need to attack me personally,

Okay... so it's okay for you... never having actually read any of Dembski's stuff to call him stupid. It's okay for you after having read a single critique of Dembski to proclaim him stupid and the argument officially debunked... all this without having read Dembski, and somehow I am wrong for calling you a charlatan. Okay.



even in thread's that I choose to not bother posting in due to your need to slander me.

Pointing out your previous ATS username isn't slander.


The only reason I bother this time is pretty much to say. Enough is enough. Grow up and act mature and civil.

You First.



Stop calling me out every chance you get. It's tired and old now. it was cute the first time, but enough is enough. You've gotta grow a pair sometime and be a man for once.

Cute huh... hmmm... that's not really what I was going for. I just got what I was going for.

If you'd care to continue this discussion in a civil manner, that's fine, we can do that... if you'd care to keep going just like we always have, we can do that too.

Really the choice is yours.

You'll note that I did respond to the critique you 'experted' somewhere in this rant.

[edit on 11-6-2006 by mattison0922]

[edit on 11-6-2006 by mattison0922]

[edit on 11-6-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Ok...

I don't get it. It seems like most posts are basically people slamming each other on their ideas. But, as to the original topic, what's your problems with the list? I already noted that it can't be an exclusive top 10 list, but do y'all have a problem with ALL the points raised there?



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   
As a believer in Evolution over ID, can i ask a question to those that support ID?

Do you totally discount Evolution in all forms, or believe that its still plays a part but ID is the dominant factor in life today?

Cheers



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by scepticsteve
As a believer in Evolution over ID, can i ask a question to those that support ID?

Do you totally discount Evolution in all forms, or believe that its still plays a part but ID is the dominant factor in life today?

Cheers


As a believer of ID, I do not discount evolution at all. I just do not see how it is possible to happen by its self.
peace
Mr MX



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by scepticsteve
As a believer in Evolution over ID, can i ask a question to those that support ID?

Do you totally discount Evolution in all forms, or believe that its still plays a part but ID is the dominant factor in life today?

Cheers


You could sort of think as ID in the same manner you would theistic evolution (TE's will not like that to be sure)... IDTists try to determine or detect the 'guided evolution' the TE's say can't be but is there none-the-less. There's been some talk lately (Dembski et al) to change the name from Intelligent Design to Intelligent Evolution... whatever is clever I guess. There's a LOT of semantics play in this debate which only makes things more confusing imo.

FWIW Folks like Behe have no issue with common ancestry, which most critics seem to forget when calling him anti-evolution. Anti-gradualism, most likely. Anti-neoDarwinian theory, absolutely.

It's not an easy question for sure. Here's some interesting quotes you may find helpful.

“Design is inferred from evidence, not deduced from scripture or religious doctrines… ID attempts to formulate our everyday logic in terms rigorous enough to warrant inferences from the evidence in nature.” Jonathan Wells (PhDs in Molecular and Cell Biology) [source]


First of all, what has come to be called 'design theory' is at best a means for mathematically describing, empirically detecting, and then quantifying teleology (goal-directedness) in nature, without prejudging where or whether it will be found. Secondly, if it is granted that teleology might be an objective part of nature, then it also has to be acknowledged that design research can be carried out in a manner that does not violate methodological naturalism as a philosophical constraint on science. Bruce Gordon (PhD history and philosophy of physics) associate director of the Polanyi Center. [source]

"It is no longer enough, to consider only the anatomical structure of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the nineteenth century (and as popularizers of evolution continue to do today)… Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant to the question of whether evolution could take place on the molecular level." Michael Behe (PhD Biochemistry) Prof. of Biochem at Lehigh University. Source: 'Dawin's Black Box' by M. Behe Discussed online here

There's nothing wrong with "not believing in" ID, many, MANY people, much, MUCH smarter than I who do not. However, it's extremely rare in my experience to find a critic who has actually taken the time to read the material and form their own opinion. The sheer volume of things I'm ignorant of would be enough to stop that big pink elephant sitting in Darwin's room... so I can't fault you or anybody for not knowing what to think about it. I'd recommend reading the following (it'd be a good idea imo to start with the IDTists so you understand what Miller and Dawkins are refuting):

Darwin's Black Box : The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution M. Behe

No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence W. Dembski (key word: "purchased" re the tautology of using evolutionary mechanism to explain evolutionary mechanisms... Mattison covered this already)

The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design R. Dawkins

Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution K. Miller

There's a kabillion others out there (give 'er take a smidge) but this is a good place to start imo.

Regards.

[edit on 11-6-2006 by Rren]



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Ok...

I don't get it. It seems like most posts are basically people slamming each other on their ideas. But, as to the original topic, what's your problems with the list? I already noted that it can't be an exclusive top 10 list, but do y'all have a problem with ALL the points raised there?


TS, I don't have a problem with any of the things per se.... I don't think the site is a good resource for people who want to learn about evolution though. The TO site is much better.

Furthermore, my issue was more with madness using it to attack ID/creationism. Most of the info at that site isn't a part of any ID/creationist lit. I am familiar with.

The only 'claim' that I think could be related to ID was the 10th claim, and I explained earlier how it was... ummm.... flawed.

While I don't have a problem with the site in principle, I would never recommend someone check it out over TO or other pro-evolution site.

Thanks for trying to get the thread back on Topic



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   


You First.


Duly noted. Which is why you haven't seen me before today bite your flame baits. Which will also be why this will be the last time I bother posting in the same thread as you. Call me out all you want. Insult all you want. But just remember, I was the first to grow up and cut the immature insult BS. Regardless of my personaly opinion of Dembski or Behe, none of that affect's you personally, there is no need to insult me based upon my opinion's of them, informed or otherwise. Had I insulted you personally, then of course I'd expect you to be as childish and insult me back. Seeing as how I haven't insulted you personally. Piss off. And goodbye.



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prot0n
Duly noted. Which is why you haven't seen me before today bite your flame baits. Which will also be why this will be the last time I bother posting in the same thread as you. Call me out all you want. Insult all you want. But just remember, I was the first to grow up and cut the immature insult BS. Regardless of my personaly opinion of Dembski or Behe, none of that affect's you personally, there is no need to insult me based upon my opinion's of them, informed or otherwise. Had I insulted you personally, then of course I'd expect you to be as childish and insult me back. Seeing as how I haven't insulted you personally. Piss off. And goodbye.


Interesting perspective. ATS members, for reference, Produkt believes that stating

You've gotta grow a pair sometime and be a man for once.


and

Piss off


constitute having

grow[n] up and cut the immature insult BS



[edit on 11-6-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by scepticsteve
Do you totally discount Evolution in all forms, or believe that its still plays a part but ID is the dominant factor in life today?

Cheers


ID perspectives are really quite variable. In fact, in a way you could think of ID as an umbrella over several sort of ideas. But to answer your question in the most direct possible way: ID absolutely doesn't discount evolution in all forms. Some members of the ID movement accept the common descent of apes and man, while others do not. Like any broad based idea, there are different camps within the field as a whole.

With respect to whether ID 'plays a part in life today:' this isn't written in stone either. Certainly a deistic POV, is an ID based viewpoint. The Designer needn't be thestic, deistic or supernatural at all... (though I personally believe the final example to be a logical difficulty for ID). In any case the nature, actions, or aspects of the designer are not relevant to movement as a whole. IOW, the designer isn't important, only the design.

This concept of design being the relevant characteristic is often the most difficult point for people to understand about ID.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   
I think what brings the various ID ideas together is the notion that undirected ToE is wrong. Somewhere, somehow, sometime an intelligent input was made into life in this universe.

Oh....and the other thing that brings all the ID hypotheses together is that none of them have any positive evidence at all.

I also see the Isaac Newton of information theory (Dembski) has been advertising for a competent mathmatician to solve an equation for him, haha. No wonder his work is ignored by all information researchers.

OT: Mattison did you see the new paper in nature on levo amino acids?




top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join