Discussion from "Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS"

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#741  Postby GenesForLife » Jan 19, 2011 12:58 pm

fastonez wrote:You mean you don't believe in intelligent design? Why not?


There is something called empirical, scientific evidence, ever heard of it? ID has precisely zero, and as far as the ID movement in the US of A is concerned, the ideologically driven discoursively malfeasant attempts of attempting to use it as a method to sneak religion into the classroom are well documented. Also add to it the fact that design requires the establishment of a designer and the processes involved just like methodological naturalism requires the evidential support of postulates through testing to stand.

No evidence, no reason to "believe" , and before you go about equivocating, learn the difference between belief in evidentially supported facts and belief in mythology through faith, the two being separate entities.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#742  Postby fastonez » Jan 19, 2011 1:00 pm

GenesForLife wrote:
fastonez wrote:You mean you don't believe in intelligent design? Why not?


There is something called empirical, scientific evidence, ever heard of it? ID has precisely zero, and as far as the ID movement in the US of A is concerned, the ideologically driven discoursively malfeasant attempts of attempting to use it as a method to sneak religion into the classroom are well documented. Also add to it the fact that design requires the establishment of a designer and the processes involved just like methodological naturalism requires the evidential support of postulates through testing to stand.

No evidence, no reason to "believe" , and before you go about equivocating, learn the difference between belief in evidentially supported facts and belief in mythology through faith, the two being separate entities.


Who promotes intelligent design?
User avatar
fastonez
Banned Sockpuppet
 
Posts: 79

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#743  Postby GenesForLife » Jan 19, 2011 1:01 pm

fastonez wrote:
GenesForLife wrote:
fastonez wrote:You mean you don't believe in intelligent design? Why not?


There is something called empirical, scientific evidence, ever heard of it? ID has precisely zero, and as far as the ID movement in the US of A is concerned, the ideologically driven discoursively malfeasant attempts of attempting to use it as a method to sneak religion into the classroom are well documented. Also add to it the fact that design requires the establishment of a designer and the processes involved just like methodological naturalism requires the evidential support of postulates through testing to stand.

No evidence, no reason to "believe" , and before you go about equivocating, learn the difference between belief in evidentially supported facts and belief in mythology through faith, the two being separate entities.


Who promotes intelligent design?


The Discovery Institute, heard of them?
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#744  Postby fastonez » Jan 19, 2011 1:02 pm

No, why, are they well known?
User avatar
fastonez
Banned Sockpuppet
 
Posts: 79

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#745  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 19, 2011 1:06 pm

fastonez wrote:No, why, are they well known?


Impossible to answer. They're well known in certain circles - infamous might be a good word. Outside the US, they have a few fans in various English speaking countries. Some scientists in other countries might have heard of their wedge document. People who dispute I.D. will almost certainly have heard of them.

Why not just go read about them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24737
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#746  Postby GenesForLife » Jan 19, 2011 1:07 pm

fastonez wrote:No, why, are they well known?


Right, what part of the world do you come from?

They are associated with the Right Wing in the US of A , and have been involved in efforts to undermine scientific research by driving a wedge between academia and the general public through propaganda, they tried to help push Religious Creationism into science classes by labelling it "Intelligent Design", the case went to court and the movement was exposed.
The case was Dover vs Kitzmiller and you can find legal transcripts at http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/kitzm ... ranscripts.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#747  Postby fastonez » Jan 19, 2011 1:13 pm

GenesForLife wrote:
fastonez wrote:No, why, are they well known?


Right, what part of the world do you come from?

They are associated with the Right Wing in the US of A , and have been involved in efforts to undermine scientific research by driving a wedge between academia and the general public through propaganda, they tried to help push Religious Creationism into science classes by labelling it "Intelligent Design", the case went to court and the movement was exposed.
The case was Dover vs Kitzmiller and you can find legal transcripts at http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/kitzm ... ranscripts.


Why would something like that need to go to court? Did they do anything illegal?
User avatar
fastonez
Banned Sockpuppet
 
Posts: 79

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#748  Postby GenesForLife » Jan 19, 2011 1:20 pm

fastonez wrote:
GenesForLife wrote:
fastonez wrote:No, why, are they well known?


Right, what part of the world do you come from?

They are associated with the Right Wing in the US of A , and have been involved in efforts to undermine scientific research by driving a wedge between academia and the general public through propaganda, they tried to help push Religious Creationism into science classes by labelling it "Intelligent Design", the case went to court and the movement was exposed.
The case was Dover vs Kitzmiller and you can find legal transcripts at http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/kitzm ... ranscripts.


Why would something like that need to go to court? Did they do anything illegal?


Yes, trying to force religion into science classes.
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#749  Postby fastonez » Jan 19, 2011 1:21 pm

Did they get sentenced?
User avatar
fastonez
Banned Sockpuppet
 
Posts: 79

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#750  Postby hackenslash » Jan 19, 2011 1:30 pm

i'm getting a strong whiff of hosiery from this poster, and it's getting stronger by the minute.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21402
Age: 50
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#751  Postby GenesForLife » Jan 19, 2011 1:30 pm

fastonez wrote:Did they get sentenced?


DI lost the case, if that is what you mean, and their attempts at trying to introduce creationism through ID into classrooms were declared illegal and therefore impermissible. The thing that did the most damage was the exposure of the underhanded tactics of the DI and the "Intelligent Design" community in court by the Plaintiffs. If you want an in-depth review go through the transcripts, they make for good reading, and the judgment, found here http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&source ... Ug&cad=rja

During the trial, the fundamental nature of ID as being an unscientific position emerged, along with exposes of scientific flaws in some of the arguments put forth by ID proponents (Going through the testimonies of Dr.Ken Miller and Dr.Kevin Padian will be informative in this regard) and some of the more underhanded propaganda tactics that implicated ID as nothing more than repackaging Religious Creationism were exposed later in the case (by Barbara Forrest, I think)
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 30
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#752  Postby Scar » Jan 19, 2011 2:04 pm

fastonez wrote:Did they get sentenced?


No, since it was them who sued. They lost their case.
Image
User avatar
Scar
 
Name: Michael
Posts: 3967
Age: 33
Male

Country: Germany
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#753  Postby Scar » Jan 19, 2011 2:05 pm

hackenslash wrote:i'm getting a strong whiff of hosiery from this poster, and it's getting stronger by the minute.



Agreed.
Image
User avatar
Scar
 
Name: Michael
Posts: 3967
Age: 33
Male

Country: Germany
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#754  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 19, 2011 3:20 pm

hackenslash wrote:i'm getting a strong whiff of hosiery from this poster, and it's getting stronger by the minute.


:thumbup:

I guessed it was some degree of ideologically driven hooligan on about his 3rd post where all he did was ask inane questions.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24737
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#755  Postby Rumraket » Jan 19, 2011 3:26 pm

That was fast.. what did he get banned for?
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13144
Age: 38

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#756  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 19, 2011 3:39 pm

Rumraket wrote:That was fast.. what did he get banned for?


I assume he was an already banned user, or had multiple accounts.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24737
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#757  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 20, 2011 2:16 am

Not just a naturalistic point of view, but also a religious one in which an intelligent designer formed us from the earth. Your argument good sir is silly as your own assertions contradict what you just said.
Nope since there is a difference when people are being intelligently designed from pre-existing matter, and people simply coming from rocks without an intelligent cause. Big difference.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#758  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 20, 2011 2:17 am

I will just point and laugh at the serious level of mental retardation involved in making the aforementioned assertion, the fact that it is high impact does not make it easy for pro-evolution papers to be published, it means that the journal's standards of empirical rigour lead to it being extensively used as a source for further research, and you have shown the fundamental inability (perhaps wilfully) to understand the fact that Nature is a multidisciplinary journal and it is easy to get articles published if they are empirically very good in a wide variety of fields, which has not being going into your head due to Morton's demon.

High-Impact journals are high impact not because they allow easy publication of articles supporting a non-existent doctrinal committment, but because the scientific community regularly uses the work published therein to inform and guide their own work.
Which just means that a lot of people cite work done in that journal. That does not make it good in and of itself. It simply means it's popular. Popular does not make it good.

[1] The Wedge Strategy, that the DI only sought to push religion into classrooms through the use of underhanded propaganda tactics to try and replace science, by creating a wedge between the public and academia.
The Wedge strategy was known before the Dover. It has nothing to do with „underhanded propaganda“. It was on the same level as NCSE's agenda to keep evolution in school. Or when Dawkins said on TV that his goal is to destroy religion.

[2] The typical discoursive malfeasance of people like Michael Behe, who among other things indulged in dismissing evidence without having even considered that evidence in the first place, in other words, Olympic standard handwaving and dishonesty under oath.
Show me an example.

[3] The total no-show of DI representatives except Behe at the trial.
How is that exposing anything?

[4] The admission by Michael Behe that the inclusion of ID as science would stretch the boundaries of what constituted science so far that things like astrology would fall under its remit, in other words, the very inclusion of ID as science would require treating unadulterated bullshit as scientific.
Basicly that means that anything has the right to be called scientific if it works. Even astrology. But if it has been shown not to bring good results, it can be discarded.

[5] The Wedge inspired nature of the ID attempt at sneaking Cretinism through the back door, "Cdesign Proponentsists"
comes to mind.
How is that different from NCSE's goal to keep evolution in school classrooms?

I want a citation that this lugubrious satirized version is actually what is presented/supported by Nature.
This is what is known as abiogenesis, google it.

Another paper from a journal without an impact factor which has only been cited by the author himself when writing for a theological publication that aims to get missionaries involved with fields of technical importance.
It's a less known journal, doesn't mean it's non-existent.

The paper per se says nothing about ID being scientific, just that if we assume nature to be designed in the same way machines are designed, it appears coherent (a subjective judgement) since some areas of nature look designed (Watchmaker argument restated).
So by definition, if it says that we should look at nature as being designed, it's arguing for ID.

So your attempt to present this is nothing more than a quotemine, offering a subjective opinion without reasoning using debunked canards in a paper abstract that no one other than one of the authors per se has endorsed somehow makes ID scientific?
Yes, nobody has to endorse the paper to be scientific. I never saw where it says in the scientific method itself, that somebody has to endorse your view, for it to be scientific.

Well, obviously, since engineering is the exploitation of natural processes and forces to human ends and some scientific research at least depends on altering and manipulating natural events and processes in order to study the effects of said manipulation on the processes being studied.
Engineering is a product of design.

Bzzzz, say hello to arse backwards reasoning. Anything that is reverse engineerable must be engineered in the first place? And the empirical evidence to show that this invariably must be the case is? And it makes for a compelling argument how?
No, it simply claims that an engineerd world is a good working hypothesis for science.

The old "Let us attach things with a purpose" line of obfuscatory navel gazing, never mind the fact that attributing purpose to things automatically constitutes the use of question-begging, since it has to be demonstrated that everything is a mark of intenionality or that everything must have an intention in the first place.
We are not automatically attributing purpose to patterns. We are simply saying that it's a good hypothesis for scientific investigation.

The Anthropic Principle Canard and the Fine Tuning Canard rolled into one.
And you have shown them to be false how?

Satisfying? Appeal to emotion much?
Satisfying as in good scientific explanation.

Engineering Influence? Lack of evidence much?
Everything stated above is the evidence. The fact that we can describe the workings of the universe as parts of an engineerd machine is the evidence. If we couldn't describe it like that, like we can't with a random chunk of rock, then we wouldn't have any evidence for design. Just like we can't claim that a random piece of rock was designed. But we can claim that for certain other feautres of the universe. Because they very well fit the description of a designed mechanism.

Recognition of purpose? Begging the question much?
No, this is the starting hypothesis.

And all this notwithstanding the fact that practically nobody else except the author himself has taken the aforementioned opinions, even if we were to ignore the shoddy nature of the assertions contained in the abstract (since you haven't posted the full paper) seriously is yet another reason why your assertion that this somehow shows that ID is scientific is laughable.
No, what this shows is that pro-ID papers exist in scientific literature. Regardless of your opinion.

The fact that you quoted a snippet which didn't take the context of their subjective assertion making while asserting that they somehow had found teleological explanations the "most coherent" constitutes a quote mine ipso facto.
I would disagree. One of the authors of the paper was a guest at ID The Future podcast. So, yeah, he is obviously arguing for ID with this paper.

http://www.idthefuture.com/2011/01/a_be ... unive.html
Last edited by Царь Славян on Jan 20, 2011 4:52 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#759  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 20, 2011 2:18 am

Err...I didn't. I said "The above sequence was never the goal and equally the non-existent sequences were never the goal."

It is you that keeps bring up the idea that there is a goal. Well obviously the person who sets up the fitness function is the designer which is why you want there to be a goal.
And there is such a thing as fitness function of nature. And to whatever it is set up, that is the goal.

You are painting the target as it is you that is picking the flagellum. These flagellum exist but there isn't any intent.
No I'm not. The nature has set up the target by it's properties. Nature selects certain sequences over others. That is nature's fitness function, and that is the goal.

You're going to have to show where this has been said that way by scientists. When you start to use "search" then though the terminology may be comforting to others, problems arise e.g. in the topic of protein folding there are a vast numbers of possible structures but the protein manages to fold in a short time. Humans use vast search routines to try and predict the structure - with varying degrees of success.
The scientists use evolution to solve problems and they call it the evolutionary search.

http://www.waset.org/journals/waset/v39/v39-4.pdf

Again and again we must highlight that is not the goal of Natural selection as there is not goal. You only relate to this as a goal for whatever reason you personally have.
Yes, this is the goal. When people create evolutionary algorithms they set up the fitness function themselves. In other words they decide what will get selected and what will not. Thus they set up a goal. And in nature it is the rpoperties of nature that decide which organism is fit and which is not, and then natural seelction selects.

Only because they were told to do a search. Are you saying that the sea (i.e. the environment) was told to "perform the search" when something enters the sea ? This is rather stretching the imagination somewhat.
No, it wasn't told, but by teh properties of teh sea it can perform a search. Take 100 animals, drop them all in the sea and hold them under water for 2 hours. Some will survive, some will not. The properties of the sea decided which will live and which will not. Fish-like animals will survive, mammal-like will not. If the environment was reversed, in the case where you held animals on the ground for 2 hours, then fish-like animals would die without oxygen, and mammal-like animals would survive. Properite of the nature decided what will survive and what will not.

There is no goal with evolution. You are equivocating the word goal. A goal without a purpose is an outcome. The nature selects for fit animals in a particular environment. This is an outcome of evolution (natural selection). There is no goal in mind so there is no search.
What is the difference between the outcome and the goal?

As you have clearly stated what selects for an object is the physical environment it is in. Mount Rushmore is a huge chunk of granite rock face so it is not going to be moving around so we examine how incongruous it is to the environment and our understanding of weathering of rock faces.
So is the flagellum. The majority of Earth surface is earth, rock and water. A flagellum is a totally incongrous to this environment.

Pretty quickly we find that Mount Rushmore is incongruous with a scree slopes below the face containing large fragments and tooling marks that would suggest an assisted and un-natural weathering.
What's teh difference between the part of Mount Rushmore where the faces are, and where they are not?

These are different situations as no SETI person says that the aliens visited Earth and stuck tails on bacteria.
But they say that they have a method that tells them that aliens exits. And not only that that they can communicate with radio communication.

SETI exists because it is the only practical way of discovering if intelligent Aliens exist (though atmospheric changes on exoplanets may tell us if aliens have converted atmopheres that won't imply intelligence). Non-natural Radio transmission by default means an intelligent source. So until we get superluminal speed spacecraft we're stuck here on Earth. How else would you propose to discover intelligent life ?
Well ID proposes to do teh same thing. Non-natural patterns like the flagellum also signal design.

How incongruous something is to its environment that could have formed it suggests agency is involved. So finding a flagellum on a mountain, where none is expected to exist, would suggest agency is involved (in this case it was you that put it there).
So, the flagellum is designed, becasue the majority of Earth's surface is earth, rocks and water?

After a foray into your mathematics I'm going to stay with how something is incongruous to the physical it is located in.
How do you decide if something is incongrous?

The many types of bacteria flagellum are not obviously incongruous.
How did you decide that?

Religious people are desperate to get religion into the classroom in the US by whatever means. The courts are used to uncover the devious tactics used to undermine science. Intelligent design is just one such tactic. It has been very clearly stated that it is religious in nature. That you don't accept what the courts say is neither here nor there on this matter. Both in the US and the UK, "design" is not science.
Why should I care what lawyers and judges think about scientific questions?

If a designer uses evolutionary tactics i.e. the toolchain is genetic algorithms then we are unable to make any claims about the origin of the "independently given pattern". If the designer does not use evolutionary tactics i.e. the toolchain is not selected using genetic algorithms then we are able to make any claims about the origin of the "independently given pattern"
We can do it in both cases, we simply have to know if the pattern we are looking at is imporbable enough to come about by chance or not.

You are making claims about the origin of the "independently given pattern" without identifying the toolchain. That is presumptuous.
It's irrelevant. It's eitehr design, chance, or natural law.

Current scientific consensus on the bacteria flagellum shows a natural and evolutionary pathway as the "toolchain" to construct the flagellum.
This is not the case, obviously, but I will assume it's true. Now what? Does that mean that the flagellum was not designed? No, it doesn't.

I would have thought that as you already are certain that there is a designer then you would be interested. This is a rather odd approach you take. We look at the pyramids and we presume a designer - I'd be interested in who they were. But that is me.
Different strokes for different folks.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#760  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 20, 2011 2:18 am

Bzzzzzz. Thank you for playing. Environment determines fitness and, even then, only probabilistically. There is no rule that a given allele will survive, even if it confers a survival advantage.
Environment is a set of physical properties of nature, and biological sequences are among them.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest