Discussion from "Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS"

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#781  Postby hackenslash » Jan 20, 2011 8:31 am

The flagellum is not a machine, it's analogous to one.

The map is not the terrain.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21383
Age: 50
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#782  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 20, 2011 9:00 am

Царь Славян wrote:

Oh that's strange - you seem to have ignored the second part of the sentence which expressly explains the terms in quotes preceding it. Let me repeat it 'a system that no serious observer could possibly infer design from'.
Why not?


Because it does not infer design. Design being conceiving something and fashioning it for a purpose. When a system has components that inhibit its supposed purpose, or directly hamper its utility, that would not infer design. Quite the opposite.

Царь Славян wrote:
No, you have entirely and purposefully misread what I wrote. In fact, you purposefully snipped out the entire context of my point just to formulate this argument - that tends to be called 'mendacious discourse', and provides reasonable evidence towards indicting you for infringements against the forum user agreement you signed up for when you joined this forum. Perhaps best if you don't quote mine people from now on, eh?
Show me which parts I didn't quote.


There are numerous examples of manifestly 'bad design' in nature and biology, as in, systems that no serious observer could possibly infer design from.


You removed all that is bolded. You should also have noted that I put bad design in quotation marks implying that it was not as simple as me asserting bad design. You didn't. Instead, you went off along a line of reasoning that bad design is still design. I had already removed that line of reasoning by saying that I was defining 'bad design' as a system that does not in any way infer design, as in, is contradictory to inferred design.


Царь Славян wrote:
Anyway, both cars are designed - they satisfy metrics of designedness. A car is meant to convey passengers across the ground. One of those designs might be better than the other, but neither exhibits immense design flaws that actually diminish its ability to achieve its purpose. Were there a metal rod sticking right through the chassis into the earth thereby stopping the car conveying passengers across the ground, we could be sure it wasn't designed, it would be a system that no serious observer could possibly infer design from.
But you are wrong. A car as bad as you described is still designed. It's a really bad car, but it'ss till designed.


No it's not. It no longer operates as a car. It no longer conveys passengers across the ground. It is no longer a car. It's not a 'bad' car, it's not even a car.

Царь Славян wrote:
So with the recurrent laryngeal nerve. So with much of nature.
Yeah, it's bad, but it works. Just as both cars I posted work.


No, it doesn't 'work'. It works in a fish, it doesn't 'work' in a giraffe by any metric of design.

I've already dismissed your cars on 2 grounds. One, they are of known designed provenance, using them as an analogy is begging the question. Two, they both satisfy metrics of design regardless that one is more efficient than the other, therefore they are not analogous to biological systems where design is not apparent and we are attempting to elucidate how we can infer design.


Царь Славян wrote:
All this is quite aside from the notion of a designer with infinite more knowledge and infinite more power than us.
I haven't specified a designer. And I haven't said that he is nfinite in any way. Not only that, but a designer could design things to look bad if he wanted to.


It's irrelevant of what you have said, it's what is necessary were there to be a designer of life, the universe and everything.

You've perfectly established my point and undermined the design hypothesis: If a designer could design things to purposefully hamper their designed purpose and to 'look bad' (not my argument), then there's no potential means of inferring design and the hypothesis can never satisfy simple logical principles, let alone empirical testing against reality.

As I said from the beginning, it's a redundant hypothesis and should be rejected... it would be rejected if people didn't start with a conclusion then try to buttress it with cherrypicked data.
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: 23457
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#783  Postby hotshoe » Jan 20, 2011 10:15 am

Царь Славян wrote:
It's a fact that liars describe the bacterial flagellum "as a machine" in the hopes that they will delude people like you into believing that it must really be a machine.
http://www.atpsynthase.info/Basics.html

The page about the ATP Synthase claims that it's a machine. Is it lying?

Nope. Just you lying about what they mean when they use the terminology. Or maybe you're not lying, maybe you really have that much of a reading disability. In which case, you should ask for help nicely so you can understand, instead of stupidly asserting that you already know that "cellular machinery" is "designed" because the asshole Dumbski told you so.

Your Dis-Institute vomit is really stinking up this place, Tsar. You're already in the Debunk It section for IDiocy and Creotardness. I think your trolling repetition of Dumbski's lies deserves its own special forum section. Maybe a section called the Black Hole of Willful Ignorance.

Not only does your stuff stink, it's boring. Maybe time for you to freshen up your act a little.
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#784  Postby hotshoe » Jan 20, 2011 10:24 am

hackenslash wrote:The flagellum is not a machine, it's analogous to one.

The map is not the terrain.


Well, you and I know that, but remember, you're talking to Tsar whose heroes are the Dis-Institute, who stem from 2000 years of practice in brainwashing followers that the Book is more important than the reality it purports to describe. That kind of person has no idea that there even is a terrain out there. The "map" is the only reality.

Sad, really.
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#785  Postby hotshoe » Jan 20, 2011 10:38 am

Царь Славян wrote:
hotshoe wrote: :lol: :lol: :lol: The Tsar who is all about the probability math, all about the numbers, suddenly can't answer what mathematics he would use in this case.

Tsar, you should be ashamed of yourself for your dishonest non-answer to this honest question.
That's how you answer the question about natural laws.

No, that is how YOU dishonestly dodge questions about what your metric for design is, what math you use to measure design (such that your numbers would demonstrate that Mt Rushmore is designed - or not, as the case may be).

No, that is how YOU show your whole design argument to be a bluff. You have nothing more than an ignorant guess. Because you don't know a "natural law" which accounts for Mt. Rushmore, you blusteringly guess that there is no such law, and you bleat out the illogical conclusion that it must have been designed. :lol: :lol: :lol:

In this case you happen to be right, Mt. Rushmore was indeed designed. If this were Vegas, your bluff might have won you a pot of money. But getting the right answer for the wrong reason is still an abject failure in the realm of science and logic. No prizes here for you.

You should hang your head in shame for trying to get away with that nonsense on a forum devoted to rationality.
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#786  Postby hotshoe » Jan 20, 2011 10:55 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Царь Славян wrote:I haven't specified a designer. And I haven't said that he is nfinite in any way. Not only that, but a designer could design things to look bad if he wanted to.


It's irrelevant of what you have said, it's what is necessary were there to be a designer of life, the universe and everything.

You've perfectly established my point and undermined the design hypothesis: If a designer could design things to purposefully hamper their designed purpose and to 'look bad' (not my argument), then there's no potential means of inferring design and the hypothesis can never satisfy simple logical principles, let alone empirical testing against reality.


Yes. That's exactly why the so-called "hypothesis" of an evolutionary "design" can never be science. The IDiots cut their own feet out from under themselves, by claiming that the designer could have designed it any way he wanted. It's not science because it can't be tested, not even in a thought experiment. (And dog only knows who could imagine a real-world test of the "design hypothesis" :roll: ). No matter what observation finds, the answer would always be the same: "The designer wanted it that way." An answer which is always the same, no matter what, is inherently unfalsifiable.

Cue Tsar to bluster some more about how IDiocy really is science in 3, 2, 1 ...
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#787  Postby Rumraket » Jan 20, 2011 12:30 pm

hackenslash wrote:The flagellum is not a machine, it's analogous to one.

The map is not the terrain.

In fact, for all intents and purposes the flagellum is a limb.

It shows evidence of having evolved from an ancestor to the Type-3 protein export apperatus(but not from the actual, extant Type-III export apperatus), through a stage of being a molecular syringe/virulence delivery system, to the final flagellum we see today. If memory serves, all of the proteins used in the assembly of the rod, hook and filament have been sequenced and show the expected evolutionary homologies to each other, and paralogous exported adhesion and virulence proteins being exported and injected by related non-flagellated microoganisms that have the T3 apperatus and/or related molecular syringes.

The evidence shows the flagellum evolved. Get over it.

Let the apologetics and handwaving begin....
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13121
Age: 38

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#788  Postby Darkchilde » Jan 20, 2011 1:00 pm

Царь Славян wrote:
Oh, another stupid idea.
How do you decide if an idea is stupid or not?


It's probably subjective, but for example, if someone thinks they can fly like Superman, I would think that it is a stupid idea!
Царь Славян wrote:
The universe is in fact trying to kill us.
Which would imply that it either has a mind or that it was intelligently designed. Not only that but this just goes to show that the article I quoted was right in saying it was engineerd to support life. Because in order to kill something universe has to have such properties that would permit life to exist, in order to kill it.


Probably wrong choice of words, as you are a creationist. What I meant was that the universe is not exactly friendly for life. If I was the creator, I would probably make it so that the universe would be more friendly to life. And I would not create cancer and other illnesses like that.

In order for anyone to say that "the universe was engineered for life", you have to have evidence. Where is your evidence?
Царь Славян wrote:
Have you seen what is out there?
Out where?

Black holes that rip you apart atom by atom, gamma rays that would destroy the Earth's atmosphere in a flash, comets, asteroids, that by impacting on the Earth would bring about another major extinction event...
Okay, and?

There is no actual design!
According to your statement that the universe is trying to kill us, the only logical conclusion is that there is design.


Non-sequitur. How do you go from a hostile to life universe to design? Where is the logical sequence and the evidence?

Царь Славян wrote:
The constants of the universe, such as gravity may be like they are in this universe, but if there are other universes out there, either because of the multiple worlds interpretation of QM, or because we are just one bubble of many, or any other theory of multiple universes, the other universes may not have been so "lucky" with the constants.
Inventing probabilistic resources is not scientific. You can't just say that they exist without any actuall evidence for them.


Really? No evidence for the multiple worlds interpretation of QM? Someone is very behind on their studies of physics. In fact, there are two major interpretations of Quantum Mechanics at this point, and both are backed up by evidence. One is the multiple worlds interpretation, and the other is the Copenhagen interpretation. The multiple worlds interpretation is also backed up by the experiments on quantum computing.

Царь Славян wrote:
And others may have been much luckier and have more life arising! Or if we believe the cyclic model, we are living in one of the cycles whereby life is possible.
Same thing as above.


Again: multiple worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Try "The Fabric of Reality" by David Deutsch or "The Search for the Multiverse" by John Gribbin.

Царь Славян wrote:
Design of the universe: what a crock of shit!
According to your above statements, this is the only scientific explanation.

I am not a biologist, and only know the basics of evolutionary theory. However, I can say that whenever I hear the word "design" I know I am going to listen to a lot of stupid ideas, and a lot of religion masked as science. What design? The design of the eye that gets into all sorts of troubles? The design of the teeth, that need to be constantly checked and re-checked by dentists?
How does all of that NOT imply design?


How do the teeth and the eye imply design? If I was the designer, I would make it so that everyone's teeth was always perfect, and the same for eyesight. If there is a designer, then he should be fired because he is totally incompetent. If he knew anything about design and engineering (as you claim), then he would have designed people with backup systems, with interchangeable parts, and so on and so forth.

First of all, there are no backup systems. Where is the heart's backup system? If the heart goes, then goodbye. Even if you can get a new heart, you need all sorts of immuno-suppressants in order for your body to accept the heart.

In a well-designed system, you only need to shut it down, replace the faulty part, and there it goes without much else needed. In a well-designed system, you leave room for adding functionality, and for improvements.

Jeez, have you ever designed anything? Or are you just shouting bullshit about engineering and design?

Let's take a computer for example: if you do buy them as they are served to you, then you may not understand it. However, I mostly like to built my computers, and to choose every part that I put in it. So, I choose the motherboard, model and manufacturer, the CPU, how much memory I will put initially, HDDs, graphics cards, USB, Firewire, eSATA, etc. And I will probably buy some stuff to extend my computer's capabilities and add them internally, not externally. There are more slots usually than I would need, very probably... Now, where is my improvements in the supposed design of me? Can I grow wings and fly? Absolutely not. Can I have a protective exoskeleton? No, nothing like that. Can I see in the infrared or something? I need external devices, that translate the infrared into visible light.

As I said, if people are intelligently designed, then the designer must be pretty stupid and should be fired. :P
User avatar
Darkchilde
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 9015
Age: 50
Female

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post


Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#790  Postby hotshoe » Jan 20, 2011 11:50 pm

Hello, DogMendonça, and welcome to the forum.

Look around, I expect you'll see some more intelligent discussions you'll want to join in.
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#791  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 21, 2011 1:04 am

The flagellum is not a machine, it's analogous to one.


Poster named GenesForLife would disagree with you. Take it up with him.


A description is not an analogy, they say they are molecular machines , they don't say they're just like a molecular machine.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post6 ... ne#p626563
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#792  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 21, 2011 1:04 am

Because it does not infer design. Design being conceiving something and fashioning it for a purpose. When a system has components that inhibit its supposed purpose, or directly hamper its utility, that would not infer design. Quite the opposite.
What if an object was designed that way, or was degraded over time?

You removed all that is bolded. You should also have noted that I put bad design in quotation marks implying that it was not as simple as me asserting bad design. You didn't. Instead, you went off along a line of reasoning that bad design is still design. I had already removed that line of reasoning by saying that I was defining 'bad design' as a system that does not in any way infer design, as in, is contradictory to inferred design.
Okay, but just to make it clear, I claim that you can't infer design from intentionality. Because you can't infer intentionality from an object. What if you found a broken computer? Maybe somebody wanted to break it, maybe it was made broken, maybe it broke down over time.

No it's not. It no longer operates as a car. It no longer conveys passengers across the ground. It is no longer a car. It's not a 'bad' car, it's not even a car.
But it was still designed. A broken car is still a car. A broken car but a car. Even if you stop calling it as a car, it was still designed in teh first place. And yes, if it get's deformed enough, it can't be called a car anymore. But it was still designed in the first place.

A car which has it's wheels taken of is still a car, but without wheels. It can't take you anywehere, but it's still a car, and it's still designed.

No, it doesn't 'work'. It works in a fish, it doesn't 'work' in a giraffe by any metric of design.
If it's functional it works. And even if it doesn't, that doesn't mean that it wasn't designed in the first place. Because you don't know the intention of teh designer. Maybe it was designed just that way. Maybe it serves some other purpose.

I've already dismissed your cars on 2 grounds. One, they are of known designed provenance, using them as an analogy is begging the question.
Begging what question?

Two, they both satisfy metrics of design regardless that one is more efficient than the other, therefore they are not analogous to biological systems where design is not apparent and we are attempting to elucidate how we can infer design.
Your metric of design that's useless. Things that are non-functional can also be designed. If someone made a computer that doesn't work, he made it just like that. And that non-functional computer is designed.

It's irrelevant of what you have said, it's what is necessary were there to be a designer of life, the universe and everything.
Universe is not infinite, therefore,w e don't need an infinite designer.

You've perfectly established my point and undermined the design hypothesis: If a designer could design things to purposefully hamper their designed purpose and to 'look bad' (not my argument), then there's no potential means of inferring design and the hypothesis can never satisfy simple logical principles, let alone empirical testing against reality.
No, that just means that YOUR „method“ is useless. It's your method that can't infer design not mine. I told you from the start that your method is useless, because design can be non-functional. And in order to infer design by your „method“ we would have to first infer intentions of the designer, which we can't do. Therefore, your „method“ is useless and should be discarded.

As I said from the beginning, it's a redundant hypothesis and should be rejected... it would be rejected if people didn't start with a conclusion then try to buttress it with cherrypicked data.
No, it's your „method“ that should be rejected because it's logically flawed.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#793  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 21, 2011 1:05 am

Nope. Just you lying about what they mean when they use the terminology. Or maybe you're not lying, maybe you really have that much of a reading disability. In which case, you should ask for help nicely so you can understand, instead of stupidly asserting that you already know that "cellular machinery" is "designed" because the asshole Dumbski told you so.
So, what do they mean by „machine“ if not machine? Do they mean grass?

No, that is how YOU dishonestly dodge questions about what your metric for design is, what math you use to measure design (such that your numbers would demonstrate that Mt Rushmore is designed - or not, as the case may be).
I've put forth my method up many times. Please go and look it up.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#794  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 21, 2011 1:05 am

It's probably subjective, but for example, if someone thinks they can fly like Superman, I would think that it is a stupid idea!
Why?

Probably wrong choice of words, as you are a creationist.
I am? Since when?

What I meant was that the universe is not exactly friendly for life.
Yet we're still here. And in order for us to be here for a second, it has to be finely tuned for life to exist in the first place. Because if the universe didn't support life, we would be here int he first place. Because biologically relevant structures couldn't be formed. Thus, there would be no possibility of life existing in the first place. Yet here we are...

If I was the creator, I would probably make it so that the universe would be more friendly to life. And I would not create cancer and other illnesses like that.
That's very nice of you. But maybe somebody else would.

In order for anyone to say that "the universe was engineered for life", you have to have evidence. Where is your evidence?
I'm not saying that the whole universe was actually designed for life. I'm saying that the design hypothesis is a good starting position for scientific explanation. There is no way to actually show that the whole universe was designed. And the reason why the design hypothesis is a good working hypothesis for science is because we can describe many features of the universe with engineering principles. It makes for a good scientific inqury.

Non-sequitur. How do you go from a hostile to life universe to design? Where is the logical sequence and the evidence?
Because in order for life to exist in teh first place, the universe has to support it. So out of all possible ways the universe could exist, this one exists. One of the possible explanations is design.

Really? No evidence for the multiple worlds interpretation of QM? Someone is very behind on their studies of physics. In fact, there are two major interpretations of Quantum Mechanics at this point, and both are backed up by evidence. One is the multiple worlds interpretation, and the other is the Copenhagen interpretation. The multiple worlds interpretation is also backed up by the experiments on quantum computing.
The Copenhagen interpretation fails the first test of being considered as science. It's logically flawed. It's interpretation that particles can be at two places at the same time is logical fallacy. An apple can't be in two places at the same time. Neither can a particle. And no, just because it's smaller won't help. Because a small apple, no matter how small, can't be in two places at the same time. Thus the interpretation is logically flawed. And if it's logically flawed it's mathematically flawed. And if it's mathematically flawed, then it's physically flawed, thus wrong. Physics can't violate math, and math can't violate logic. Please also keep in mind that nobody ever saw a particle. It's not an observation that a particle is at two places in teh same time, it's an interpretation, and a flawed one at that.

As for many worlds interpretation, it's not logically flawed, there could be more than this one universe. But as I said we have no evidence for them. And making things up without any evidence isn't science. Unless you can show me some evidence.

Again: multiple worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Try "The Fabric of Reality" by David Deutsch or "The Search for the Multiverse" by John Gribbin.
Is there actually an observation of another universe there?

How do the teeth and the eye imply design?
Teeth could be also designed, but it's a stretch, so I'll let that go. But an eye, among other things is a photo sensitive lense. And it's to improbable to have come about by chance. And we have no natural laws, to account for the eye. Thus, we can infer design from the eye.

If I was the designer, I would make it so that everyone's teeth was always perfect, and the same for eyesight. If there is a designer, then he should be fired because he is totally incompetent. If he knew anything about design and engineering (as you claim), then he would have designed people with backup systems, with interchangeable parts, and so on and so forth.
Again, that's very nice of you, but this is at best an emotional not a scientific argument. You don't know the designer's intention for designing something. Just because you would design something in some way, doesn't mean someone else would also. Look at how many different car designs we have. Obviously different designers chose to make things differently.

First of all, there are no backup systems. Where is the heart's backup system? If the heart goes, then goodbye. Even if you can get a new heart, you need all sorts of immuno-suppressants in order for your body to accept the heart.
Does that mean that the heart itself is not designed? There is no backup for a car's engine. If it goes out, your car stops. Thus cars are not designed. Rigth?

In a well-designed system, you only need to shut it down, replace the faulty part, and there it goes without much else needed. In a well-designed system, you leave room for adding functionality, and for improvements.
A badly designed system is still designed.

Let's take a computer for example: if you do buy them as they are served to you, then you may not understand it. However, I mostly like to built my computers, and to choose every part that I put in it. So, I choose the motherboard, model and manufacturer, the CPU, how much memory I will put initially, HDDs, graphics cards, USB, Firewire, eSATA, etc. And I will probably buy some stuff to extend my computer's capabilities and add them internally, not externally. There are more slots usually than I would need, very probably... Now, where is my improvements in the supposed design of me? Can I grow wings and fly? Absolutely not. Can I have a protective exoskeleton? No, nothing like that. Can I see in the infrared or something? I need external devices, that translate the infrared into visible light.
How does any of that make any sense to you? Computers are engineerd. They can be further engineerd and added to. So can human beeings. There is a thing called genetic engineering. In due time when people will have more information about how genomes work, we will be able to furhter develop ourselves. Just we can't develop ourselves further, that doesn't mean we were not designed. Besides, pleople have come very far in medical science. Some people get surgery to have a new heart put in when the original one fails. Obviously we can be engineerd just as computers do. Just because we don't have shops around the corner to buy organs like we have for computer hardware, says nothing about original human design.

As I said, if people are intelligently designed, then the designer must be pretty stupid and should be fired.
Which still means we were designed, only you dislike the design. That is all.
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#795  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 21, 2011 1:12 am

Using creationist textbooks, then editing said textbooks to try and push creationism into classrooms in the guise of ID, which was then exposed due to a hilarious editing error("CDesign Proponentsists") is underhanded. Game finished.
Please explain how.

Try Behe being cross examined where he gets shown a pile of scientific literature and dismisses them all as being not good enough and also admits to not having read them, somewhere on Days 10,11 and 12, go through the full transcripts.
http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket ... cripts.htm
Actually he said that they don't address his points not that they are not good enough.

It exposes the total unwillingness of people to defend what they assert in open court, especially when the stakes are so high that ID could have gained legitimacy.
But ID is legitimate. Opinions of few angry atheists don't mean anything.

I do fucking know what abiogenesis is, and none of it in the scientific literature actually is presented in the way you have done, which is why it is a strawman caricature. Care to actually learn to fucking read anytime soon?
Oh, then how is abiogenesis supposed to be described?

The fact that we can explain the body's function in terms of spinning energy wheels makes that itself evidence? Or the concept of Vatham,Pittam and Kapham in Ayurveda? Since herbal medicine works in a lot of cases one could conclude that the aforementioned principle upon which it is based is correct, one example is enough to show you the absurdity of your "logic" here.

Of course, there is the question of another one of those asinine assertions "It looks designed, therefore design" , argumentum I see thingsum.
No. Just becasue it can be described as designed, doesn't mean it is designed. It just means it's a good starting position for scientific inquiry.

The argument is not if it is arguing for ID or not, the argument is that the abstract consists nothing more than subjective wibble.
How is it subjective?
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#796  Postby hotshoe » Jan 21, 2011 1:17 am

Царь Славян wrote:
The flagellum is not a machine, it's analogous to one.


Poster named GenesForLife would disagree with you. Take it up with him.


A description is not an analogy, they say they are molecular machines , they don't say they're just like a molecular machine.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post6 ... ne#p626563

Glad to see that this lying quote mine by the Tsar has already been reported before I could hit the report button.

Thanks - whoever - for trying to maintain standards of honest discourse in the face of Tsar's relentless attacks of distortion.
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#797  Postby Царь Славян » Jan 21, 2011 1:19 am

hotshoe wrote:
Царь Славян wrote:
The flagellum is not a machine, it's analogous to one.


Poster named GenesForLife would disagree with you. Take it up with him.


A description is not an analogy, they say they are molecular machines , they don't say they're just like a molecular machine.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post6 ... ne#p626563

Glad to see that this lying quote mine by the Tsar has already been reported before I could hit the report button.

Thanks - whoever - for trying to maintain standards of honest discourse in the face of Tsar's relentless attacks of distortion.
Where exactly is the distortion?
User avatar
Царь Славян
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 294

Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#798  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 21, 2011 1:36 am

Tsar, you clearly don't get it. You pretend that you can infer design, but when pushed, you basically admit that nothing is impossible with regards to design, ergo, you cannot infer design. You alone have achieved precisely the same conclusion that others have arrived at - namely, the design hypothesis is neither scientific nor logical because it doesn't have a remit and is untestable. The only question is how long it will take you to realise it.
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: 23457
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#799  Postby hotshoe » Jan 21, 2011 1:38 am

Царь Славян wrote:
Using creationist textbooks, then editing said textbooks to try and push creationism into classrooms in the guise of ID, which was then exposed due to a hilarious editing error("CDesign Proponentsists") is underhanded. Game finished.
Please explain how.

Trolling fail.

Try Behe being cross examined where he gets shown a pile of scientific literature and dismisses them all as being not good enough and also admits to not having read them, somewhere on Days 10,11 and 12, go through the full transcripts.
http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket ... cripts.htm
Actually he said that they don't address his points not that they are not good enough.

Language and reading comprehension fail.
Behe lost. You're backing a loser.

Trying to weasel out of it by whining about the semantic difference between a summary "not good enough" and a pedantic "don't address his points" is not getting you a win.

For those interested in the truth instead of Tsar's quibbling distortion, here's the relevant portion of the trial transcript. Behe's answers are the "A" sentences (in response to lawyers "Q").
Transcript, Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District, Day 12 wrote:Q. We'll get back to that. Now, these articles rebut your assertion that scientific literature has no answers on the origin of the vertebrate immune system?

A. No, they certainly do not. My answer, or my argument is that the literature has no detailed rigorous explanations for how complex biochemical systems could arise by a random mutation and natural selection and these articles do not address that.

Q. So these are not good enough?

A. They're wonderful articles. They're very interesting. They simply just don't address the question that I pose.

Q. And these are not the only articles on the evolution of vertebrate immune system?

A. There are many articles.

Q. May I approach?

THE COURT: You may.

Q. Professor Behe, what I have given you has been marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 743. It actually has a title, "Behe immune system articles," but I think we can agree you didn't write these?

A. I'll have to look through. No, I did not.

Q. And there are fifty-eight articles in here on the evolution of the immune system?

A. Yes. That's what it seems to say.

Q. So in addition to the, some of these I believe overlap with the eight that I previously identified that Dr. Miller had talked about, so at a minimum fifty new articles?

A. Not all of them look to be new. This one here is from 1991 that I opened to, I think it's under tab number 3, it's entitled "Evidence suggesting an evolutionary relationship between transposable elements and immune system recombination sequences." I haven't seen this article, but I assume that it's similar to the ones I presented and discussed in my testimony yesterday.

Q. And when I say new, I just meant different from the eight that I identified with Dr. Miller.

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. A minimum of fifty, and you're right they're not all new. Some go back as early as 1971, and they go right through 2005, and in fact there's a few that are dated 2006, which I guess would indicate a forthcoming publication.

A. I assume so.

Q. Okay. So there's at least fifty more articles discussing the evolution of the immune system?

A. And midpoint I am, I certainly haven't had time to look through these fifty articles, but I still am unaware of any that address my point that the immune system could arise or that present in a detailed rigorous fashion a scenario for the evolution by random mutation and natural selection of the immune system.

Q. I think you said in your deposition you would need a step-by-step description?

A. Where in my deposition did I say that?

Q. Do you remember saying that?

A. I probably said something like that, but I would like to see it.

Q. Is that your position today that these articles aren't good enough, you need to see a step-by-step description?

A. These articles are excellent articles I assume. However, they do not address the question that I am posing. So it's not that they aren't good enough. It's simply that they are addressed to a different subject.

Q. And I'm correct when I asked you, you would need to see a step-by-step description of how the immune system, vertebrate immune system developed?

A. Not only would I need a step-by-step, mutation by mutation analysis, I would also want to see relevant information such as what is the population size of the organism in which these mutations are occurring, what is the selective value for the mutation, are there any detrimental effects of the mutation, and many other such questions.

Q. And you haven't undertaken to try and figure out those?

A. I am not confident that the immune system arose through Darwinian processes, and so I do not think that such a study would be fruitful.

Q. It would be a waste of time?

A. It would not be fruitful.

Q. And in addition to articles there's also books written on the immune system?

A lot of books, yes.

Q. And not just the immune system generally, but actually the evolution of the immune system, right?

A. And there are books on that topic as well, yes.


Q. I'm going to read some titles here. We have Evolution of Immune Reactions by Sima and Vetvicka, are you familiar with that?

A. No, I'm not.

Q. Origin and Evolution of the Vertebrate Immune System, by Pasquier. Evolution and Vertebrate Immunity, by Kelso. The Primordial Vrm System and the Evolution of Vertebrate Immunity, by Stewart. The Phylogenesis of Immune Functions, by Warr. The Evolutionary Mechanisms of Defense Reactions, by Vetvicka. Immunity and Evolution, Marchalonias. Immunology of Animals, by Vetvicka. You need some room here. Can you confirm these are books about the evolution of the immune system?

A. Most of them have evolution or related words in the title, so I can confirm that, but what I strongly doubt is that any of these address the question in a rigorous detailed fashion of how the immune system or irreducibly complex components of it could have arisen by random mutation and natural selection.

Q. Or transposition and natural selection?

A. Or transposition is a form of mutation, so when I say random mutation, that includes that, yes.

Q. Okay. Even though we have all these articles we have seen discussing the transpositions and the transposon hypothesis?

A. Well, again as I have tried to make clear in my testimony yesterday, often times people when they're working under the aegis of a theory simply assume some component of it, and my example of that was the ether theory of the propagation of light. All of the physicists of the relevant era, the late 19th century, including the most eminent ones, thought that that happened and they thought that ether was absolutely required by their theory, but it had turned out later not to exist. And so as somebody who's not working within a Darwinian framework, I do not see any evidence for the occurrence of random mutation and natural selection.

Q. Let me give you some space there.

A. Thank you.

(Brief pause.)

Q. There's also books on the immune system that have chapters on the evolution of the immune system?

A. Yes, and my same comment would apply to those.

Q. I'm just going to read these titles, it sounds like you don't even need to look at them?

A. Please do go ahead and read them.

Q. You've got Immune System Accessory Cells, Fornusek and Vetvicka, and that's got a chapter called "Evolution of Immune Sensory Functions." You've got a book called The Natural History of the Major Histocompatability Complex, that's part of the immune system, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And here we've got chapter called "Evolution." Then we've got Fundamental Immunology, a chapter on the evolution of the immune system.

A lot of writing, huh?

A. Well, these books do seem to have the titles that you said, and I'm sure they have the chapters in them that you mentioned as well, but again I am quite skeptical, although I haven't read them, that in fact they present detailed rigorous models for the evolution of the immune system by random mutation and natural selection.

Q. You haven't read those chapters?

A. No, I haven't.

Q. You haven't read the books that I gave you?

A. No, I haven't.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm.html

It exposes the total unwillingness of people to defend what they assert in open court, especially when the stakes are so high that ID could have gained legitimacy.
But ID is legitimate.

Evidence fail.

What you assert as legitimate without evidence can be refuted without evidence.

Opinions of few angry atheists don't mean anything.
Oh, you really do want a career in comedy, do you ? You're so cute when you try to be funny.

Do I look angry to you ? :lol: :lol: :lol:

I do fucking know what abiogenesis is, and none of it in the scientific literature actually is presented in the way you have done, which is why it is a strawman caricature. Care to actually learn to fucking read anytime soon?
Oh, then how is abiogenesis supposed to be described?

Trolling fail.

The fact that we can explain the body's function in terms of spinning energy wheels makes that itself evidence? Or the concept of Vatham,Pittam and Kapham in Ayurveda? Since herbal medicine works in a lot of cases one could conclude that the aforementioned principle upon which it is based is correct, one example is enough to show you the absurdity of your "logic" here.

Of course, there is the question of another one of those asinine assertions "It looks designed, therefore design" , argumentum I see thingsum.
No. Just becasue it can be described as designed, doesn't mean it is designed.

Thank dog you've finally come to your senses and admitted the truth for once.

Yes, just because it can be described as designed doesn't mean it is designed. Yes, you finally comprehend. You've got it.

I think we're done here.

It just means it's a good starting position for scientific inquiry.
Oops, I spoke too soon. No it's not a good starting position for a scientific inquiry because your IDiot heroes at the Dis-Institute have defined "design" in a way that makes it totally unfalsifiable and therefore totally unscientific.

Not that I expect you to understand.

The argument is not if it is arguing for ID or not, the argument is that the abstract consists nothing more than subjective wibble.
How is it subjective?

Trolling fail.
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Calilasseia - CREATIONISTS-READ THIS

#800  Postby hotshoe » Jan 21, 2011 1:46 am

Царь Славян wrote:
Nope. Just you lying about what they mean when they use the terminology. Or maybe you're not lying, maybe you really have that much of a reading disability. In which case, you should ask for help nicely so you can understand, instead of stupidly asserting that you already know that "cellular machinery" is "designed" because the asshole Dumbski told you so.
So, what do they mean by „machine“ if not machine? Do they mean grass?

Just a friendly usage tip, Tsar. In normal English, quotes are both identical on top left and right, like "so". Your usage with the odd "bottom" quote mark - „machine“ - is a mistake in English. Surely you can learn to fix that bad habit without turning on the forbidden spell checker.

No, that is how YOU dishonestly dodge questions about what your metric for design is, what math you use to measure design (such that your numbers would demonstrate that Mt Rushmore is designed - or not, as the case may be).
I've put forth my method up many times. Please go and look it up.
What, wade through pages of your vomitous posts in the hope that you're not lying about the answer you claim to have put forth ?

You're joking, right ?

Please link or copy-paste your post where you provide the mathematic metric that demonstrates Mt. Rushmore is designed. No other math will do - not any of your vomit about how improbable the universe is, or any other garbage from you. Just exactly where you've provided a specific metric for design which shows that Mt. Rushmore is designed.

Or you could, you know, admit that you're lying about having done so before. And admit that you can't do it now.
Now, when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said, "Stick by my side and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
hotshoe
 
Posts: 3177

United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests