Mike Hough wrote:
> From the wiki article: Behe eventually testified under oath that "There are 
> no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design 
> supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed 
> rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system 
> occurred"
> 
> That says it all, really. While scientists must provide sound experimental 
> or empirical evidence to support a hypothesis, ID proponents merely point 
> out the things that scientist do not know for certain and use that to 
> dismiss everything else. Something you often hear in the scientific 
> community is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The only 
> logical conclusion one can make is that ID is not a science.

Reading the judge's summing up made for interesting reading... It's 
heartening to hear that somebody is still sane. So often in this world 
court rulings seem to produce absurd results.

The response was equally insane: "The Dover decision is an attempt by an 
activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even 
to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed 
censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work. He has conflated 
Discovery Institute’s position with that of the Dover school board, and 
he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the 
scientists who research it."

What. The. Hell.

Seriously, how can people actually be allowed to utter such outragous 
lies?! o_O

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> The response was equally insane: "The Dover decision is an attempt by an
> activist federal judge

Make that conservative activist judge, appointed by George W. Bush.  His
decision was a knife in the back of the evangelical Christians who got him
there, was it?  He's an activist judge because he DIDN'T rule based on his
preconceptions and a political agenda?  A ruling based on precedent, evidence,
and testimony?  Sounds like a horrible guy.  I need a walk.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

"triple_r" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> For whatever
> it's worth (and the value is debatable), they determined that, legally
> speaking, ID is not science.

Forgive me for talking to myself, but before I start problems I should emphasize
that I really don't mind whether you fall into one camp or the other.  What I
despise is the dishonesty--the disingenuous claims by groups like the Discovery
Institute that they're trying to uncover objective truth without any religious
motives.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

triple_r wrote:

> Forgive me for talking to myself, but before I start problems I should emphasize
> that I really don't mind whether you fall into one camp or the other.  What I
> despise is the dishonesty--the disingenuous claims by groups like the Discovery
> Institute that they're trying to uncover objective truth without any religious
> motives.

Sure. If people want to believe that God created the universe, they're 
entitled. Heck, maybe they're *right*. But either way,

1. The question is not science.

2. Don't force other people to believe something just because you want 
them to.

3. Stop lying and trying to cheat the system to get your own way.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:

> Why subject yourself to such horror?

My mum was in a bookshop, saw a book about science and thought I might 
be interested. I was... for the first few chapters.

By the time it got to the part about "maybe at some point in the future 
we will have the technology to design our own genome and travel back in 
time to seed the Earth with it", I was in a state of utter disbelief. 
*How* can somebody who claims to be a scientist seriously propose such 
nonesense?!

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 escreveu:
> By the time it got to the part about "maybe at some point in the future 
> we will have the technology to design our own genome and travel back in 
> time to seed the Earth with it", I was in a state of utter disbelief. 
> *How* can somebody who claims to be a scientist seriously propose such 
> nonesense?!

Hmm, can't a scientist speculate?  Thought experiments, anyone?

not that that guy is much of a scientist...

Post a reply to this message

>> By the time it got to the part about "maybe at some point in the 
>> future we will have the technology to design our own genome and travel 
>> back in time to seed the Earth with it", I was in a state of utter 
>> disbelief. *How* can somebody who claims to be a scientist seriously 
>> propose such nonesense?!
> 
> Hmm, can't a scientist speculate?  Thought experiments, anyone?

"Hmm, how could something this complex have arrisen? Well, maybe it was 
designed by aliens from another planet."

"Well, yeah, but then how did *they* arrise in the first place? You 
haven't really answered the question, just moved it to another planet."

"Hmm, well, maybe in the future *we* will became sufficiently advanced 
to both design entire genomes and also travel through time. So maybe 
*we* are the 'aliens'?"

"Uh... now you've just hidden the problem inside a temporal paradox 
instead of answering it."

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> activist federal judge 

I remember once the supreme court said something like

"Activist? Of course we're activist. You come and stand in front of us and 
ask us to make a decision. Who do you expect to act, Donald Duck?"

How can you be an "activist" judge, if your job is to make the decision 
about what was intended by a particular law?


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 escreveu:
>>> By the time it got to the part about "maybe at some point in the 
>>> future we will have the technology to design our own genome and 
>>> travel back in time to seed the Earth with it", I was in a state of 
>>> utter disbelief. *How* can somebody who claims to be a scientist 
>>> seriously propose such nonesense?!
>>
>> Hmm, can't a scientist speculate?  Thought experiments, anyone?
> 
> "Hmm, how could something this complex have arrisen? Well, maybe it was 
> designed by aliens from another planet."
> 
> "Well, yeah, but then how did *they* arrise in the first place? You 
> haven't really answered the question, just moved it to another planet."
> 
> "Hmm, well, maybe in the future *we* will became sufficiently advanced 
> to both design entire genomes and also travel through time. So maybe 
> *we* are the 'aliens'?"
> 
> "Uh... now you've just hidden the problem inside a temporal paradox 
> instead of answering it."

Hmm, yea.  It makes a lot less sense now. :P

BTW, wasn't he supposed to be supporting a creationist view?  He's 
contradicting even that by suggesting man created man! O_o

Post a reply to this message

>>> Hmm, can't a scientist speculate?  Thought experiments, anyone?
>>
>> "Hmm, how could something this complex have arrisen? Well, maybe it 
>> was designed by aliens from another planet."
>>
>> "Well, yeah, but then how did *they* arrise in the first place? You 
>> haven't really answered the question, just moved it to another planet."
>>
>> "Hmm, well, maybe in the future *we* will became sufficiently advanced 
>> to both design entire genomes and also travel through time. So maybe 
>> *we* are the 'aliens'?"
>>
>> "Uh... now you've just hidden the problem inside a temporal paradox 
>> instead of answering it."
> 
> Hmm, yea.  It makes a lot less sense now. :P

In other words, as a "thought experiment", the result is pretty 
conclusive: this line of reasoning doesn't make coherant sense.

> BTW, wasn't he supposed to be supporting a creationist view?  He's 
> contradicting even that by suggesting man created man! O_o

*shrugs*

All I know is that his book's argument is basically

1. Darwin's theory has various problems. (E.g., it doesn't address how 
life *started* - well, yes, that's true, it doesn't.)

2. Darwin's theory is therefore false.

3. ID is therefore correct. (Wuh?!)

4. "Now that we have proved that ID is correct, this raises several 
interesting questions..."

That last point really made me gasp. Seriously, you haven't *proved* 
anything! You're just waving your hands around going "hey, Darwin is 
imperfect, therefore you're all wrong". Sheesh...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

"Mike Hough" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:498736d9$1@news.povray.org...

> That says it all, really. While scientists must provide sound experimental
> or empirical evidence to support a hypothesis, ID proponents merely point
> out the things that scientist do not know for certain and use that to
> dismiss everything else. Something you often hear in the scientific
> community is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The only
> logical conclusion one can make is that ID is not a science.

Not really, I am afraid, for if absence of evidence (that ID is science) is
not evidence of absence, whether ID is science or not would remain an open
question. The much more rigorous principle to apply in such cases is the "if
it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck" principle.

Post a reply to this message

Behe actually spoke at our church once.

His talk said he supported John Paul II's view of evolution.  I asked him if he
felt that a process of "change through descent" could be responsible for
speciation. He replied that it has.

What's so bad then?

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn wrote:
> Behe actually spoke at our church once.
> 
> His talk said he supported John Paul II's view of evolution.  I asked him if he
> felt that a process of "change through descent" could be responsible for
> speciation. He replied that it has.
> 
> What's so bad then?

According to his book, all the species that now exist were "programmed 
into" the first lifeforms when the Intelligent Designer first built 
them. Over time, these species came and went, according to the 
Designer's original plan.

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> According to his book, all the species that now exist were "programmed 
> into" the first lifeforms when the Intelligent Designer first built them. 
> Over time, these species came and went, according to the Designer's 
> original plan.

Well, if you make your program well enough, and let it run for however-many 
aeons, and it spits out huge varieties of things, couldn't you say that, in 
a way, they were "programmed into" the first things?

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> According to his book, all the species that now exist were "programmed 
>> into" the first lifeforms when the Intelligent Designer first built 
>> them. Over time, these species came and went, according to the 
>> Designer's original plan.
> 
> Well, if you make your program well enough, and let it run for 
> however-many aeons, and it spits out huge varieties of things, couldn't 
> you say that, in a way, they were "programmed into" the first things?

He made it sound as if all the species that would ever exist, and the 
exact time that they would arrise and die out was pre-ordined in the DNA 
of the first lifeforms. In particular, that the "unused" parts of the 
DNA are actually the encodings for later lifeforms.

All of which is *highly* implausible. How is the supposed Designer 
supposed to know how the climate of the planet is going to evolve over 
the next thousand millennia? Or, for that matter, how do you encode 
several hundred billion genomes into just one (deterministically)?

Of course, he could be right... but it's not falsifiable.

Post a reply to this message

> How is the supposed Designer supposed to know how the climate of the 
> planet is going to evolve over the next thousand millennia? Or, for that 
> matter, how do you encode several hundred billion genomes into just one 
> (deterministically)?

Those would fit with the definitions of omniscient and omnipotent. One nice 
thing about religion is that you can make the creator anything you want.

Post a reply to this message

Mike Hough wrote:
>> How is the supposed Designer supposed to know how the climate of the 
>> planet is going to evolve over the next thousand millennia? Or, for that 
>> matter, how do you encode several hundred billion genomes into just one 
>> (deterministically)?
> 
> Those would fit with the definitions of omniscient and omnipotent. One nice 
> thing about religion is that you can make the creator anything you want. 

Indeed. If we assume that God was the designer, all of this is quite 
easy to accept. But this guy is trying to claim that this is a real 
scientific theory. As in, a mere mortal could have done all this.

Post a reply to this message

Mike Hough wrote:
> From the wiki article: Behe eventually testified under oath that "There are 
> no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design 
> supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed 
> rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system 
> occurred"
> 
> That says it all, really. While scientists must provide sound experimental 
> or empirical evidence to support a hypothesis, ID proponents merely point 
> out the things that scientist do not know for certain and use that to 
> dismiss everything else. Something you often hear in the scientific 
> community is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Except when they're talking about whether there's a God.  Then absence 
of evidence--and evidence then is defined to exclude any observation 
that cannot be duplicated--*is* evidence of absence.

 > The only logical conclusion one can make is that ID is not a science.

On the other hand, it is a valid criticism of a theory to point out that 
it does not explain certain observations, and that at times biologists 
explain the existence of a certain feature by stating nothing more than 
that it evolved.

Indeed, neither abiogenesis nor macroevolution have actually been 
observed in nature (or accomplished in the laboratory); they are both 
assumed to have happened without any direct supporting evidence.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> activist federal judge 
> 
> I remember once the supreme court said something like
> 
> "Activist? Of course we're activist. You come and stand in front of us 
> and ask us to make a decision. Who do you expect to act, Donald Duck?"
> 
> How can you be an "activist" judge, if your job is to make the decision 
> about what was intended by a particular law?

That's easy.  You pretend the law requires "interpretation," and issue 
the interpretation that fits what you wish the law said.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:

> That's easy.  You pretend the law requires "interpretation," and issue 
> the interpretation that fits what you wish the law said.

It burns! It BURNS!! >_<

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 09:41:26 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did  
spake thusly:

> Tim Cook wrote:
>> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> According to his book, all the species that now exist were "programmed  
>>> into" the first lifeforms when the Intelligent Designer first built  
>>> them. Over time, these species came and went, according to the  
>>> Designer's original plan.
>>  Well, if you make your program well enough, and let it run for  
>> however-many aeons, and it spits out huge varieties of things, couldn't  
>> you say that, in a way, they were "programmed into" the first things?

Depends. If I create a programme that just spouts 16 random 0 and 1's and  
I stop it at 16 1's was that result programmed in? On the other hand if I  
wrote the programme such that tests if a 1 appears and if surrounded by  
1's (assume circular) keep it steady when 16 1's appear is that programmed  
in?

> He made it sound as if all the species that would ever exist, and the  
> exact time that they would arrise and die out was pre-ordined in the DNA  
> of the first lifeforms. In particular, that the "unused" parts of the  
> DNA are actually the encodings for later lifeforms.

Sound's like he's been reading Darwin's Radio and Darwin's Children  
without clocking to the bit about them being fiction.

> All of which is *highly* implausible. How is the supposed Designer  
> supposed to know how the climate of the planet is going to evolve over  
> the next thousand millennia? Or, for that matter, how do you encode  
> several hundred billion genomes into just one (deterministically)?

And yet IIRC frog dna contains multiple context situations dependant on  
the temperature of the frogspawn.

> Of course, he could be right... but it's not falsifiable.

Or to be precise it doesn't present any form of experimental ability  
regardless of current ability. I'm thinking of String Theory here which is  
currently untestable, but happily provides rigid experiments that could be  
provable.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Too many people get stuck on the idea that humans and intelligent life are 
like the goals of a deterministic process when nothing could be further from 
the truth. Evolution has no agenda, people are not special and it is simply 
the best stratigy for the evironment is going to be the one that comes to 
dominate.
The idea that evolution was "programmed" at the start makes the assumption 
that the programmer had knowlege of all the environmental changes that would 
happen over 1,000,000,000 or more years. A premise that sounds somewhat less 
likely than the premise of natural selection.
So, no. there was no magical programmer to set everything in motion. There 
is no merit to discuss ID in a scientific framework.

-- 
H²

Post a reply to this message

Halbert wrote:
> Too many people get stuck on the idea that humans and intelligent life are 
> like the goals of a deterministic process when nothing could be further from 
> the truth. Evolution has no agenda, people are not special and it is simply 
> the best stratigy for the evironment is going to be the one that comes to 
> dominate.

As an aside, the most successful organisms on this planet... are not 
humans. By any stretch of the imagination.

If you happen to be a human-sized organism, then certainly humans are 
the most visible lifeforms around here. But, truth be told, the most 
numerous animals are unicellular. By some considerable margin.

Also, people tend to look down on animals such as living fossils and so 
forth. As if "yeah, they were great in their day, but superior organisms 
have evolved now". But you know what? Unsegmented worms are *still* here 
today, which means that one way or another they *still* manage to 
compete successfully with the "superior" organisms around them.

The goal of evolution is not to come up with more and more sophisticated 
designs. It's to come up with STUFF THAT WORKS. However clever or dumb 
that might turn out to be.

> The idea that evolution was "programmed" at the start makes the assumption 
> that the programmer had knowlege of all the environmental changes that would 
> happen over 1,000,000,000 or more years. A premise that sounds somewhat less 
> likely than the premise of natural selection.
> So, no. there was no magical programmer to set everything in motion. There 
> is no merit to discuss ID in a scientific framework.

Er, yeah.

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> That's easy.  You pretend the law requires "interpretation," and issue 
> the interpretation that fits what you wish the law said.

Why would it be in front of the judge if it didn't require interpretation?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> Except when they're talking about whether there's a God.  Then absence 
> of evidence--and evidence then is defined to exclude any observation 
> that cannot be duplicated--*is* evidence of absence.

Absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence, tho. Basic probability theory. 
Which is more unlikely: The unicorn you don't see is in the room, or the 
unicorn you *do* see is in the room?

> On the other hand, it is a valid criticism of a theory to point out that 
> it does not explain certain observations, and that at times biologists 
> explain the existence of a certain feature by stating nothing more than 
> that it evolved.

"Failure to explain an observation" is quite different from "theory's 
prediction contradicts observation". In any case, "it evolved" is an 
explanation that's disprovable.

> Indeed, neither abiogenesis nor macroevolution have actually been 
> observed in nature (or accomplished in the laboratory);

Abiogenesis has been accomplished in the lab now. Macroevolution is easy to 
observe in the lab as well.

Unfortunately, those who wish to continue disbelieving proof will dismiss 
both with the True Scotsman argument.

> they are both 
> assumed to have happened without any direct supporting evidence.

The direct supporting evidence for abiogenesis is "life is here now, life 
wasn't here 1 second after the big bang."  :-)

The supporting evidence for macroevolution is legion. Including all the 
fossils, for example.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

>
> Abiogenesis has been accomplished in the lab now. Macroevolution is easy 
> to observe in the lab as well.
>

I would be very interested in reading about this. When, where, who and how?

-- 
H²

Post a reply to this message

Halbert wrote:
> I would be very interested in reading about this. When, where, who and how?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab.html

The number of species created in labs are too numerous to list. It takes 
about three or four weeks to make a new species of fruit flies, IIRC, just 
by taking a group and subjecting half two one set of environments and half 
to the other.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

On 3-2-2009 17:29, Darren New wrote:

> The direct supporting evidence for abiogenesis is "life is here now, 
> life wasn't here 1 second after the big bang."  :-)

How do you know, where you there?

;)

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> How do you know, where you there?

If you think you can make life out of unassociated quarks and photons, then 
I think that pretty clearly puts to rest the question of whether 
macroevolution works. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

On 3-2-2009 19:46, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> How do you know, where you there?
> 
> If you think you can make life out of unassociated quarks and photons, 
> then I think that pretty clearly puts to rest the question of whether 
> macroevolution works. :-)
> 
We know that God did survive, so why not another form of life?

Did I see a slight move in position from you trying to prove that life 
must have started sometime after the universe was created to either that 
or macroevolution must exist? That leaves the field open for anyone to 
seem to admit one in order to keep the other card. You'd be in trouble 
with more that one opponent. They won't play the same card to you so 
have to split and do two discussions at the same time. Unless you have 
perfect memory and totally accurate predict their next moves, you'll end 
up contradicting yourself, when taken sufficiently out of context. In 
short, this 1 second card will almost certainly let you lose the game.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> We know that God did survive,

Do we?

> so why not another form of life?

Because God isn't a form of life?

> Did I see a slight move in position from you trying to prove that life 
> must have started sometime after the universe was created to either that 
> or macroevolution must exist?

Errr, no. Unless you want to believe that all species of life on Earth 
actually existed within moments of the Big Bang, back when the universe was 
literally too small to hole even a single Elephant, then macroevolution must 
have occurred if God created all life at the start of the universe.

> this 1 second card will almost certainly let you lose the game.

Only to clueless people.   It seems to me that the evidence is sufficiently 
overwhelming that anyone who doesn't already believe that evolution occurs 
isn't going to be swayed by mere scientific evidence. There are already too 
many people trying to show scientific evidence of their faith-based beliefs 
that it's senseless to actually argue it with the intent of winning.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

On 3-2-2009 23:07, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> We know that God did survive,
> 
> Do we?
well 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.' implies 
that He was there before the big bang. He is still here, so He survived. 
(All from the perspective of someone that believes God exists of course).
> 
>> so why not another form of life?
> 
> Because God isn't a form of life?

That is an interesting position.

>> Did I see a slight move in position from you trying to prove that life 
>> must have started sometime after the universe was created to either 
>> that or macroevolution must exist?
> 
> Errr, no. Unless you want to believe that all species of life on Earth 
> actually existed within moments of the Big Bang, back when the universe 
> was literally too small to hole even a single Elephant, then 
> macroevolution must have occurred if God created all life at the start 
> of the universe.

I was merely pointing out that you now have two options. Either life 
always existed and we have macroevolution or life was created later and 
we may not have that. And that that is a problematic position. Not 
because of the people with a scientific background that agree with your 
POV but for the others that you call clueless but are in fact very 
clever in breaking all rules of a normal discussion.

>> this 1 second card will almost certainly let you lose the game.
> 
> Only to clueless people.   It seems to me that the evidence is 
> sufficiently overwhelming that anyone who doesn't already believe that 
> evolution occurs isn't going to be swayed by mere scientific evidence. 
> There are already too many people trying to show scientific evidence of 
> their faith-based beliefs that it's senseless to actually argue it with 
> the intent of winning.
>

Post a reply to this message

Some examples of speciation occuring in nature include plants in the genera 
Spartina and Tragopogon. Plants are kind of cool in that new species can 
arise through polyploidy (instant speciation).


"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:498874cc$1@news.povray.org...
> Halbert wrote:
>> I would be very interested in reading about this. When, where, who and 
>> how?
>
>
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab.html
>
> The number of species created in labs are too numerous to list. It takes 
> about three or four weeks to make a new species of fruit flies, IIRC, just 
> by taking a group and subjecting half two one set of environments and half 
> to the other.
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
>
> -- 
>   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
>   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
>   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
>   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 3-2-2009 23:07, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> We know that God did survive,
>>
>> Do we?
> well 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.' implies 
> that He was there before the big bang. He is still here, so He survived. 
> (All from the perspective of someone that believes God exists of course).
Interestingly, as someone pointed out, there is never any mention of God 
"making" the sea, just breathing on one that was already there, as a 
means of "starting" the whole mess... So, not much of a "all powerful" 
god, if he had to start with something that was already there...

>>
>>> so why not another form of life?
>>
>> Because God isn't a form of life?
> 
> That is an interesting position.
> 
Technically true though. Life implies certain properties. With the 
possible exception of "reproduction", which even crystals can manage.., 
its a bit unclear what "life processes" he has, which qualifies him as a 
"life form". But, maybe that is being a bit too nit picky. We are 
talking about something you can't provide non-self referencing evidence 
for "reproducing" either.

>>> Did I see a slight move in position from you trying to prove that 
>>> life must have started sometime after the universe was created to 
>>> either that or macroevolution must exist?
>>
>> Errr, no. Unless you want to believe that all species of life on Earth 
>> actually existed within moments of the Big Bang, back when the 
>> universe was literally too small to hole even a single Elephant, then 
>> macroevolution must have occurred if God created all life at the start 
>> of the universe.
> 
> I was merely pointing out that you now have two options. Either life 
> always existed and we have macroevolution or life was created later and 
> we may not have that. And that that is a problematic position. Not 
> because of the people with a scientific background that agree with your 
> POV but for the others that you call clueless but are in fact very 
> clever in breaking all rules of a normal discussion.
> 
How about this rule. Before arguing that "macro-evolution", a term 
"entirely" invented by creationists, is invalid, present a "plausible" 
reason why so called micro-evolution "cannot" lead to the former, which 
isn't based on, "Well, I just don't believe it!" So far, the best anyone 
can come up with is the embarrassment of "Irreducible Complexity", which 
has been disproved by both "explanations" for earlier transitions, 
numerous examples of transitions, and even ridiculously simple computer 
programs, which show that its not just possible, but under some 
conditions, inevitable that such "irreducible" results come about. Its 
really simple, really. You have something that does something 2+2=4, you 
copy it, 2+2=42+2=4, you "tweak" it, 2+2=42+2=5, which still works, 
because there are two copies. You have a deletion 2+2=4+2=5, it still 
"works", since the original is still there. Then you have a "mutation", 
2+2=4+1=5, now you have a whole "new" function, which partly does what 
the prior one did, but also now does something completely different 
(presuming here that any "valid" = is a "function". Yet, its now 
"irreducible", since any "change" to any part will either kill the 
"original" function, or the "new" function. In the program I saw, which 
was insanely simple, irreducibility could happen within as "little" as 
five changes, where no individual "change" was detrimental to the 
"survival" of the artificial animal, based on the criteria given.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Tim Cook wrote:
>> "Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> According to his book, all the species that now exist were 
>>> "programmed into" the first lifeforms when the Intelligent Designer 
>>> first built them. Over time, these species came and went, according 
>>> to the Designer's original plan.
>>
>> Well, if you make your program well enough, and let it run for 
>> however-many aeons, and it spits out huge varieties of things, 
>> couldn't you say that, in a way, they were "programmed into" the first 
>> things?
> 
> He made it sound as if all the species that would ever exist, and the 
> exact time that they would arrise and die out was pre-ordined in the DNA 
> of the first lifeforms. In particular, that the "unused" parts of the 
> DNA are actually the encodings for later lifeforms.
> 
> All of which is *highly* implausible. How is the supposed Designer 
> supposed to know how the climate of the planet is going to evolve over 
> the next thousand millennia? Or, for that matter, how do you encode 
> several hundred billion genomes into just one (deterministically)?
> 
> Of course, he could be right... but it's not falsifiable.

Snort. Yeah, got to love the logic of these people. One babbles about 
"front loading", claiming that it contains all the "patterns" for all 
future animals (never mind the fundamental contradictions with actual 
facts of what "is" in the code), but you can find similar fools babbling 
about how "impossible" it is for humans to be "formed" purely via the 
active genes in the human genome, in that, "Its just not enough of them!!!"

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_Black_Box
> 
> I wasted about a week reading this book. If any of you have the change 
> to read it... don't bother. Seriously.
> 
> While reading this book, I was actually astonished that somebody could 
> seriously present such obvious nonesense as "fact". I was simply amazed 
> that anybody would agree to print such lies. Furthermore, the author is 
> apparently paid to work as a "scientist", yet he seems to not comprehend 
> the simple definition of what "science" actually is.
> 
> Seriously... I wasted a week of my life! >_<
> 
> (Although some of the stuff was interesting... Inbetween the 
> thinly-disguised religious rantings, there was some interesting science. 
> Like the cascade of chemical reactions that turn a photon impact into an 
> electric potential.)

Actually, what is worse is that he is a math expert, but.. As near as 
"anyone" that knows math can figure, the guy can't even manage to get 
that right in his book.

There is another example of this from the same bunch recently. A Cdesign 
Proponentcists got hold of an neat equation and wibbled a load of 
fertilizer over it. His "first" magic trick was take what meant "total 
number of possible combinations", and convert that too, "How many 
attempts are made.", since he has no way to even "get" that number, he 
imagines the number of "animals" that could have existing in 6,000 
years, and uses "that".. Huh?? Not even close to the original.

Second trick was to take the part that is defined as "The total number 
of possible combinations that 'can' produce the protein you want.", ( 
this is rather large really, there are multiple ways to "code for" 
nearly every protein imaginable, like hundreds, if not thousands), and 
says, "Well, there is only 'one' solution".  WTF?

Then, the third slight of hand is to "declare" than any "winning" result 
has to have an arbitrary limit in size. Same argument made with the 
whole "macro/micro" BS, that there is some imaginary "limit" on how many 
things you can change via random effects, before you magically stop 
getting any sort of changes/information from it... So, he simply pulls 
something out of his backside, and declares "that" as the limit.

So.. You have "Life has to have resulting in X attempts, with only one 
possible correct result, and using only the 'allowed' amount of 
information to get there.", which basically takes the original equation, 
and doesn't just make shit up to lie, but puts the whole thing in a 
blender, and hits "puree". Dumb people, i.e., those without someone to 
explain the deceit, stair at the resulting blob of muck and go, "Ah, 
right, what ever you say it is. I'll... take you at your word on this 
one.", or so they "hope".

Basically, its Beheistic math. Use an equation in a way that makes "no" 
sense, with just plain made up numbers in some places, and implausible 
ones in others, then hope, knowing you will probably be right, that most 
people won't have the slightest damn idea how incorrectly you "used" the 
math, or how big a lie you just told, thus convincing them its a rabbit 
your pulling out of the hat, not what's left of their brains:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/durstons_devious_distortions.php



-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:07:50 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake thusly:

> Only to clueless people.   It seems to me that the evidence is  
> sufficiently overwhelming that anyone who doesn't already believe that  
> evolution occurs.

Ah but they don't deny evolution, they deny unplanned evolution. Let's say  
that we evolved near a shoreline and that as a species we lost the  
majority of our body hair because those without did better in water than  
those with and that those without didn't have any problems with protecting  
their skin as they were in water. However it is also possible to suggest  
that a group suddenly lost their body hair and thus moved to the shore  
because those that didn't suffered skin cancers (having lost their  
protection) and that this was 'meant' to happen as the water allowed us to  
attain our full upright posture which allowed us to utilise our hands more  
etc. etc. The outcome's the same, but different cause.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Basically, its Beheistic math. Use an equation in a way that makes "no" 
> sense, with just plain made up numbers in some places, and implausible 
> ones in others, then hope, knowing you will probably be right, that most 
> people won't have the slightest damn idea how incorrectly you "used" the 
> math, or how big a lie you just told, thus convincing them its a rabbit 
> your pulling out of the hat, not what's left of their brains:
> 
> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/durstons_devious_distortions.php

OK, that's pretty impressive.

How is it possible to stand up in public and emit outright provable 
*lies* like this? Seriously... is there actually no law against 
deliberately trying to mislead people?

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Before arguing that "macro-evolution", a term 
> "entirely" invented by creationists, is invalid,

What's even worse are those that say "evolution *within* a 'kind' is OK". 
And then you ask them the difference between "kind" and "species" and they 
handwave. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> And lo On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:07:50 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> 
> did spake thusly:
> 
>> Only to clueless people.   It seems to me that the evidence is 
>> sufficiently overwhelming that anyone who doesn't already believe that 
>> evolution occurs.
> 
> Ah but they don't deny evolution, they deny unplanned evolution.

I think you'll find a whole bunch of the faithful who don't believe "we 
descended from monkeys."

> However it is also possible 
> to suggest that a group suddenly lost their body hair and thus moved to 
> the shore because those that didn't suffered skin cancers (having lost 
> their protection) and that this was 'meant' to happen as the water 
> allowed us to attain our full upright posture which allowed us to 
> utilise our hands more etc. etc.

So God miraculously caused skin cancers in order to get what he wanted?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 
>> Basically, its Beheistic math. Use an equation in a way that makes 
>> "no" sense, with just plain made up numbers in some places, and 
>> implausible ones in others, then hope, knowing you will probably be 
>> right, that most people won't have the slightest damn idea how 
>> incorrectly you "used" the math, or how big a lie you just told, thus 
>> convincing them its a rabbit your pulling out of the hat, not what's 
>> left of their brains:
>>
>> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/durstons_devious_distortions.php 
>>
> 
> OK, that's pretty impressive.
> 
> How is it possible to stand up in public and emit outright provable 
> *lies* like this? Seriously... is there actually no law against 
> deliberately trying to mislead people?

If there was, they would have to close like.. 90% of the churches in the 
country. lol But, seriously, its the whole "freedom of speech" thing, 
combined with the *entirely* unequal protection that religion gets when 
its adherents "claim" to be talking about "Truth". DI people function in 
a state of flux. If the attack on them is about "factual" information, 
they claim its "religious", therefor exempt from attack, if its the 
validity of a religious assertion, they claim that their view is 
actually "scientific", and therefor cannot be challenged theologically, 
and since the vast majority of people either don't care, or have grown 
up with a failed science education, which leaves them unable to address 
the flaws in "either" perspective, they can do this with impunity, with 
almost no chance of being challenged.

The problem for them is, of course, the moment they take "opinion", and 
try to present it as "policy", people that do know the difference show 
up, like at the Dover trial, and rip "both" sides of their argument to 
shreds, exposing in the process, their real intentions. Same has been 
happening in some school boards, thankfully, where saner minds have 
fired, elected replacements for, or simply backed down, due to possible 
lawsuits, from promoting this BS. Then again, you also have cases like 
one woman in the Texas state board who "admits" that she thinks that 
public schools, which must follow "standards" in their education are 
"unconstitutional", and has actually stated that she thinks its her holy 
duty, or some BS, to do everything in her power to intentionally 
undermine them. Pretty sure she isn't the only one, and that the only 
thing making it even stupider is that some of them, like her, mean 
"destroy", while others mean, "corrupt with creationist and extremist 
religious views", which are two mutually exclusive goals. You can't, 
"make schools more religious", and, "completely destroy and replace them 
with home schooling and private schools", at the same time. Not without 
shooting your own movement in the foot in the process.

Unfortunately, both groups are shooting the next generation in the head, 
as a means to their general ends. :(

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 4-2-2009 16:33, Darren New wrote:
> Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>> And lo On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:07:50 -0000, Darren New 
>> <dne### [at] sanrrcom> did spake thusly:
>>
>>> Only to clueless people.   It seems to me that the evidence is 
>>> sufficiently overwhelming that anyone who doesn't already believe 
>>> that evolution occurs.
>>
>> Ah but they don't deny evolution, they deny unplanned evolution.
> 
> I think you'll find a whole bunch of the faithful who don't believe "we 
> descended from monkeys."

Apes! Beware of the librarian.

Post a reply to this message

On 4-2-2009 6:45, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 3-2-2009 23:07, Darren New wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>> We know that God did survive,
>>>
>>> Do we?
>> well 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.' implies 
>> that He was there before the big bang. He is still here, so He 
>> survived. (All from the perspective of someone that believes God 
>> exists of course).
> Interestingly, as someone pointed out, there is never any mention of God 
> "making" the sea, just breathing on one that was already there, as a 
> means of "starting" the whole mess... So, not much of a "all powerful" 
> god, if he had to start with something that was already there...
> 
>>>
>>>> so why not another form of life?
>>>
>>> Because God isn't a form of life?
>>
>> That is an interesting position.
>>
> Technically true though. Life implies certain properties. With the 
> possible exception of "reproduction", which even crystals can manage.., 
> its a bit unclear what "life processes" he has, which qualifies him as a 
> "life form". But, maybe that is being a bit too nit picky. We are 
> talking about something you can't provide non-self referencing evidence 
> for "reproducing" either.

I think that according to the bible he made adam and eve in his own 
image (from which we can e.g. infer that God has nipples). You can 
easily argue that that is 'reproduction'. Genesis 6 starts with: "1 When 
men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to 
them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, 
and they married any of them they chose." I don't know what the 
canonical interpretation is but it seems that either he had actual 
children or he considers men close enough to count as his sons.

Post a reply to this message

> I think that according to the bible he made adam and eve in his own image 
> (from which we can e.g. infer that God has nipples). You can easily argue 
> that that is 'reproduction'. Genesis 6 starts with: "1 When men began to 
> increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the 
> sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married 
> any of them they chose." I don't know what the canonical interpretation is 
> but it seems that either he had actual children or he considers men close 
> enough to count as his sons.

Makes me wonder about vestigial organs. Does God have a tail? A third 
eyelid? If we go by what we know of the earliest humans, God could very well 
be Neanerthal.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:

>> How is it possible to stand up in public and emit outright provable 
>> *lies* like this? Seriously... is there actually no law against 
>> deliberately trying to mislead people?
> 
> If there was, they would have to close like.. 90% of the churches in the 
> country. lol

Well, not really.

"I believe that God created the world." That's factual. There's 
(presumably) no lie in that.

"God did create the world." This may or may not be true, so you can't 
really prohibit somebody saying it.

"This equation from this paper *proves* that God created the world." 
This is immediately and trivially falsifiable. This is a lie - an 
untruth created for the expressed purpose of misleading people.

> But, seriously, its the whole "freedom of speech" thing, 
> combined with the *entirely* unequal protection that religion gets when 
> its adherents "claim" to be talking about "Truth". DI people function in 
> a state of flux. If the attack on them is about "factual" information, 
> they claim its "religious", therefor exempt from attack, if its the 
> validity of a religious assertion, they claim that their view is 
> actually "scientific", and therefor cannot be challenged theologically, 
> and since the vast majority of people either don't care, or have grown 
> up with a failed science education, which leaves them unable to address 
> the flaws in "either" perspective, they can do this with impunity, with 
> almost no chance of being challenged.

Pretty crazy stuff.

OTOH... for what a man would wish to be true, that he more readily 
believes. I guess that explains why anybody would fall for this nonesense.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:17:44 +0100, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>> I think you'll find a whole bunch of the faithful who don't believe "we 
>> descended from monkeys."
>
>Apes! Beware of the librarian.

The most sensible comment in the whole thread. ;)

Or.

There is no god because He was found guilty of crimes against humanity.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 21:49:56 +0000, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>OTOH... for what a man would wish to be true, that he more readily 
>believes. I guess that explains why anybody would fall for this nonesense.

As the troll king said in Peer Gynt. "Be true to yourself-ish."
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/durstons_devious_distortions.php

> OK, that's pretty impressive.

> How is it possible to stand up in public and emit outright provable 
> *lies* like this? Seriously... is there actually no law against 
> deliberately trying to mislead people?

  I must admit I didn't really understand that article at scienceblogs.

  What I understood from that long text was, basically:

1) "He uses a value of N which is way too small, thus he is misusing the
entire equation and he is a pseudoscientist." While the article notes that
since N is a divisor and not a factor, using a value of N which is too
small actually favors the evolutionary side rather than the creationist
side, but that still matters: He is using the equation wrong, and thus
everything he says is BS.

  I don't really get it. He is using a divisor which is too small,
making the overall result way larger than it should be, making his point
*weaker* rather than stronger, and he *still* gets diminishingly small
probabilities for the evolutionary processes. I suppose that if he had
used the correct value of N, the result would have been even worse from
the evolutionary point of view. Yet this article makes it a bit point
that he is using a value which is too small.

2) "He ignores the value M(Ex) and replaces it with something else." Then
I fail to see how the article explains what would have been the correct
value for M(Ex) and why it was wrong. The article just says it's wrong,
without really saying why, or what it should be.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 1) "He uses a value of N which is way too small,

Not just that's too small, but is unrelated to the actual value of N in any 
way. It's too small because he wants it related somehow to the wrong value 
on top.

What he's doing is taking (say) the formula which is the equivalent of "for 
what percentage of time that you roll two dice do you get a total of seven." 
Instead of having "number of combinations that total to seven divided by 
total number of possible pairs of dice", he's saying "roll the dice three 
times. Note it doesn't come up seven any of those three times. Probability 
that it comes up seven is 0 / 3."

> 2) "He ignores the value M(Ex) and replaces it with something else." Then
> I fail to see how the article explains what would have been the correct
> value for M(Ex) and why it was wrong. The article just says it's wrong,
> without really saying why, or what it should be.

M(Ex) is the number of ways you can get the result you're looking for by 
arranging proteins (not the way they happen to be arranged today, which is 
what Durston says). You divide it by all the possible ways you can arrange 
proteins (not all the ways that they've already been arranged, which is what 
  Durston says).

Durston doesn't do anything with M(Ex).

The formula says "the likelihood of a random protien doing X is the number 
of protiens that do X divided by the total number of possible protiens." 
Makes sense, yes?

Durston says "The likelihood of finding exactly how we evolved is 1 divided 
by the largest possible number of evolutionary changes in history up to now."

The two would seem to be entirely unrelated.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> 1) "He uses a value of N which is way too small,
> 
> Not just that's too small, but is unrelated to the actual value of N in 
> any way. It's too small because he wants it related somehow to the wrong 
> value on top.
> 
> What he's doing is taking (say) the formula which is the equivalent of 
> "for what percentage of time that you roll two dice do you get a total 
> of seven." Instead of having "number of combinations that total to seven 
> divided by total number of possible pairs of dice", he's saying "roll 
> the dice three times. Note it doesn't come up seven any of those three 
> times. Probability that it comes up seven is 0 / 3."
> 
>> 2) "He ignores the value M(Ex) and replaces it with something else." Then
>> I fail to see how the article explains what would have been the correct
>> value for M(Ex) and why it was wrong. The article just says it's wrong,
>> without really saying why, or what it should be.
> 
> M(Ex) is the number of ways you can get the result you're looking for by 
> arranging proteins (not the way they happen to be arranged today, which 
> is what Durston says). You divide it by all the possible ways you can 
> arrange proteins (not all the ways that they've already been arranged, 
> which is what  Durston says).
> 
> Durston doesn't do anything with M(Ex).
> 
> The formula says "the likelihood of a random protien doing X is the 
> number of protiens that do X divided by the total number of possible 
> protiens." Makes sense, yes?
> 
> Durston says "The likelihood of finding exactly how we evolved is 1 
> divided by the largest possible number of evolutionary changes in 
> history up to now."
> 
> The two would seem to be entirely unrelated.
> 

Yep. He's not even using the "same" equation, he is just pasting it on 
the board and hoping no one notices him deleting bits, and replacing 
others with entirely unrelated bits. Its like he did this:

2 + x = 5, but I don't like 5, so lets make it 12, and since I don't 
know what X is, I will use 1, and since 2 + 1 is not 12, every scientist 
on the planet must be an idiot to believe that any value of x, when 
added to 2 will produce 5.

Or, the way I described it in the comments (more or less), Durston sat 
down and worked out how many ways you could get a full house, 
incorrectly concluded that full houses are the **only** winning hand, 
and that the only *real* full house is two jacks and three 4s, since its 
the one he won with last week in his one and "only" hand of poker, then 
proceeded to go around telling other people how dumb they where because 
they thought any bigger hand, or other "way" to get a full house existed 
at all, and that it was totally impossible to win with any hand that 
wasn't a full house, even if the other player only had a pair of twos. 
He isn't just using the rules wrong, he doesn't even own a copy of the 
rule book. He isn't just making bad guesses about the odds of anyone 
getting a full house, he fails to even "consider" the possibility that 
some other sort of hand "could" win, or that there is some "other" way, 
other than the one he saw, that could produce the one he "knows" won.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message