Evolution for Dummies...*Edit*.....is for Dummies
POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Saturday, March 10, 2007 06:19
VIEWED: 23475
PAGE 9 of 12
Quote:No they throw mud and insults in every post, but they do it in a bitchy fashion.
Originally posted by Storymark:
My point is, they make their points civilly, at least in this thread. I disagree with them on every point, but they aren't resorting to name calling and mud-slinging. You, on the other hand, seem to be on the verge of throwing a temper tantrum.
Quote:Because everytime Cartoon lies I point it out.
And again, you keep saying "ignore them", and then reply to every post they make. Why do you not take your own advice?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
No they throw mud and insults in every post, but they do it in a bitchy fashion.
Fine continue if you like. But you've made it fairly clear that it's a personal with you. And your raging undermines your otherwise well-thought-out responses to the point that even someone who agrees with you (like me), is starting to skip your posts.
Quote:
Because everytime Cartoon lies I point it out.
So, do as I say, not as I do?
You're just perpetuating the issue, and playing into their hands. Have fun with that.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Lies repeated over and over without refutation gain credibility. One HAS to refute them - otherwise they stand as truth.
It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it.
PS There are posters I personally cannot treat with any level of civility. They lie, bait, and derail any substantive discussion with rhetorical tactics - and not as a sometime thing but as a universal approach to any discussion. I spent over a year uniformly responding civilly and at length - and finally I got tired of dealing with their crap. I refuse to hold myself to a standard that's far above theirs.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just saw the following program on TV: ( http://www.illustramedia.com/reviewpage.htm), then checked the web, where I found the script in PDF format here: http://www.illustramedia.com/scripts/UnlockingtheMysteryofLifeScript.p
df
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Just some hard science for the Evolutionists (Philosophers) among us.
So...is being a philosopher identical to being an evolutionist? I'm pretty sure Alvin Plantinga, Willian Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland would take issue with that (and so would I).
________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I especially like it when they say "This theory of evolution doesn't happen so obviously Creationism has been proven without doubt".
Mmm...fallacy of false dilemma...
________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is like getting your info on global warming from Shell and Arco. Oh, that's right. You do.
------------------
Michael Behe
Lehigh University biochemist
Fellow International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design
intelligent design advocate
Dean Kenyon
Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University
author of a controversial textbook on intelligent design
"As time passed, Kenyon began to have doubts about the viability of his own theory. Kenyon himself and researchers in laboratories around the world for years (roughly 6) tried unsuccessfully to recreate the scenario described in his book."*
Paul Nelson
PhD in philosophy
Fellow International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design
American young earth creationist and intelligent design advocate.
Phil Johnson
retired UC Berkeley American law professor
born-again Christian
intelligent design advocate
William A. Dembski
Research Professor in Philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Executive Director International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design
Stephen C. Meyer
Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science
Founder Discovery Institute
Center for Science and Culture
which advocates intelligent design
* "As time passed, Kenyon began to have doubts about the viability of his own theory." How to interpret this: I'm a smart guy. My idea doesn't work. Therefore, the whole field is wrong.
------------------------
stellar references, just smashing
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So anyway, I read the thing. For guys who think they're smart, they're kinda dumb, terribly unimaginative and more than a little arrogant. Their (collective) rationale is: 'I'm really smart and since I can't imagine it let alone figure it out, it must be wrong'. They are using themselves as the measure of all things. And posit them just as small as they are.
For example, the script makes a huge deal about the 'irreducible complexity' of a bacterial flagellum. They just can't imagine intermediates. Strange, just sitting here I came up with more than one. For example, the flagellum could have started out as a dumb but useful anchor. Something that ties the bacteria to a particular (and good) environment. It could have (gradually) acquired movement capability, either to direct the bacteria to point in one direction, or to counter external forces. As that capability became more acute, the ability to detach and re-anchor could have proven useful. And before 'ya know it, in a few short million years, presto !, free-swimming bacteria with complex flagella. And that's only one scenario.
Here's another example - Dean Kenyon spent roughly 6 years trying to figure out how proteins could have accidentally constructed themselves. First of all, most PhD students in the 'hard sciences' spend more time than that getting their (fairly limited) research done. Six years is nothing. But he never considered clay-templates, and that he might possibly have had the wrong molecule. He was so convinced it just had to be a protein he never considered a simple sugar - kind of like DNA.
And so on. Every argument they bring up has a potential avenue for research that doesn't seem to have been explored. They go immediately from 'I just can't imagine ...' to 'the butler did it !'
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I really wish people would leave faith and science in their own boxes, because we're talking entirely different realms, here.
Science is the study of the world that can be observed, measured, or proven in some way - it has nothing to say about matters of belief - the questions it addresses are 'What is this?' 'How does it work?' and 'How does it affect and get affected by other things?'.
Faith is about things that cannot be observed or proven in any way, shape or form - that is its nature - the question it answers is 'Why does everything exist?' or 'What meaning is there in existence?'.
And if scientific inquiry should inequivocally disprove biological evolution, it will take us in another *scientific* direction, not an abdication of scientific search to the tenets of whatever given faith exists in the socio-cultural environment at the time.
Again, faith and science are in two entirely different areas that cannot be interchanged or mixed and matched to suit an agenda.
Whoa. Good myth.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi. Firstly, I have to say that while you and I disagree on this (and likely some other things as well), that I respect your taking the time to read it. (You said you did, and you've given me no reason to doubt your word, so I accept that you did.)
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So anyway, I read the thing. For guys who think they're smart, they're kinda dumb, terribly unimaginative and more than a little arrogant.
I do find it troubling that whenever someone (particularly someone highly educated and likely far more qualified than anyone else in this forum) finds evidence to contradict evolution, they are immediately dismissed as idiots.
When Kenyon and coauthor Gary Steinman published Biochemical Predestination (a book on the origins of life advocating a theory of natural chemical evolution) in 1969, they were highly acclaimed as visionaries by the evolutionary community. However, Kenyon examines the matter further, finding staggering evidence to the contrary, publically refutes his original theory, and he is suddenly "kinda dumb" (-- which, to your credit, is actually rather mild compared to what many other evolutionary advocates have called him since he turned on them in the past couple decades).
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
For example, the script makes a huge deal about the 'irreducible complexity' of a bacterial flagellum. They just can't imagine intermediates. Strange, just sitting here I came up with more than one. For example, the flagellum could have started out as a dumb but useful anchor. Something that ties the bacteria to a particular (and good) environment. It could have (gradually) acquired movement capability, either to direct the bacteria to point in one direction, or to counter external forces. As that capability became more acute, the ability to detach and re-anchor could have proven useful. And before 'ya know it, in a few short million years, presto !, free-swimming bacteria with complex flagella. And that's only one scenario.
Again, I think it's a much larger stretch to imagine your scenario than the conclusion that the complex machinery of the bacterial flagellum was actually, intentionally and purposely designed that way.
I take your word that you read the whole thing (which I applaud), but the last quarter of the program dealt with the "design inference", which explains how science infers design in every area of scientific study except evolution -- where it is automatically ruled out in favor of methological naturalism, because (as Steve Meyer explained) "...if you're going to be scientific, you must limit yourselves to explanations that invoke only natural causes. You can't invoke intelligence as a cause."
As he continued, "And yet, curiously, we make inferences to intelligence all the time. It's part of our ordinary reasoning... to recognize the effects of intelligence."
They then pointed to heirogylphics found on rocks, which no one assumes to have derived through methological naturalism. Likewise, writing in the sand at the beach, the heads on Mount Rushmore, etc. Even if no one else was around to see their origin, they'd never infer that these things happened naturally, apart from intelligence.
Yet, it baffles me (who admittedly isn't the brightest bulb in the socket) that the very same people who declare that heiroglyphics on the side of a rock did not occur naturally, would look at something like the infinitely more complex DNA molecule and reason that it did occur naturally.
I realize we aren't likely to change each other's minds, but I welcome the decency of your restrained, non-insulting reply.
I also realize that I have nothing to lose in this argument. If I'm wrong, when I breathe my last, it won't matter. If I was not a product of Divine Intelligence who was created for a purpose (to worship and honor that Creator), but rather a product of chance, then I won't know it, and not a single thing that I (nor anyone else who ever lived) has said wil
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME