IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » Reference » Forum Spotlight
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags trial , evolution , intelligent design , dover id trial

Reply
Old 27th October 2005, 03:56 AM   #241
Ed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,658
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
But that is not his position as I understand it. The position is that if evolution were true science has a simple way to demonstrate it but they haven't. (I don't buy the expriment for the reasons you state)

?
Real science wouldn't for the same reasons that they don't jump thru hoops to disprove every crackpot paranormal theory that crops up: there is no evidence that such an inquery has merit.

The onus here is on the ID'ers.
Ed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2005, 05:09 AM   #242
hammegk
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,413
Originally Posted by Pastor Bentonit View Post
Interesting. Do you also claim that life at some (or many) level(s) is designed, and tuned, to evolve irreducibly complex features?
Good question.

At least in the Anthropic Principal sense, what I see around me appears to strive for added complexity.

You see design & tuning and conclude time and chance are the reason, since no other factors are available to materialists.

Originally Posted by delphi_ote
a) Self coding Turing machines are a reality. Any type of finite state machine has configurations that produce a representation of the state machine itself (or other state machines, for that matter.)
If you are convinced you are a self-coding Turing machine, what else?

Quote:
b) Self coding Turing machines have nothing to do with this subject. The algorithm evolves solutions based on the problem (enviornment, landscape, etc.) it faces, just like life. If it was necessary to start with a solution before designing an evolutionary computation algorithm, obviously nobody would use them.
Damn shame the ugly word "design" is required for your belief to make any sense.

Quote:
c) Evolutionary computation algorithms exist that design Turing machines. There is a whole field called "Genetic Programming" dedicated to the subject.
Er, yes, all undesigned, huh?
hammegk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2005, 05:56 AM   #243
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19,145
Originally Posted by Hammegk
The fact that it was designed, and tuned, to do just that. If not, I want one of those self-coding Turing machines.
Ev was indeed designed to see if information could evolve. But your glib response is too simplistic. The question is whether the model is reasonably realistic, or whether it contains an inadvertant backdoor to smuggle in the information. Having programmed the Java version, I do not believe there is a backdoor.

Each creature begins with a completely random chromosome. A portion is treated as a weight matrix (the gene), and the rest has binding sites scattered across it. The program computes the number of bits of information needed to encode the location of the binding sites (Rfrequency). The creatures are then subjected to cycles of mutation, evaluation, and selection. The selection pressure is that the gene should match only the binding sites. On each cycle, the information content is computed (Rsequence). The hypothesis was that Rsequence would start at 0, approach Rfrequency, and then hover around it. That is what happens, across a wide range of model parameters. When you turn off the selection pressure, Rsequence drops back to 0.

The premises of the program are simple enough that I think they are pertinent to real evolution. For example, I think Ev models the lac operon fairly well. Here is a paper on the information analysis of a real biological mechanism:

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/pa...o/fisinfo.html

~~ Paul
__________________
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz

RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2005, 06:19 AM   #244
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by hammegk View Post
Er, yes, all undesigned, huh?
Yes.
delphi_ote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2005, 06:44 AM   #245
drkitten
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
I don't see how you can prove the absence of a negative. Could you give me some examples of scientists proving that something wont happen?
Well, we've done a pretty good job over the past few centuries proving that nothing will fall UP. We've got a fairly good practical proof that no bats have feathers. Of course, I'm using "proof" loosely here, because what we have isn't a formal mathematical proof, merely demonstration piled upon demonstration until no one with the sense of a St. Christopher medallion would expect the contrary, and in fact, would suspect trickery and fraud if presented with contrary "evidence."

Scientists don't operate in the realm of mathematical proof -- they operate in the realm of evidence.

Regarding Behe's proposed experiment -- in a land of infinite time and funding, someone would probalby perform Behe's experiment just to shut him the hell up. In the real world -- well, I'm a practicing scientist myself. I have, at a guess, about 100,000 hours of research time over the course of my life, time in which I must establish my place in the history books, achieve financial security for myself and my loved ones in our retirement,... oh yes, and advance the course of human knowledge and leave the world a better place than I found it (and all the while still teaching my 10am intro sections). How many hours of my life would you like me to spend running Behe's experiment, when we've already established that it won't, in fact, tell us anything we don't already know? How much are you willing to compensate me for my lost time?
drkitten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2005, 08:09 AM   #246
Pastor Bentonit
Thinker
 
Pastor Bentonit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 130
Originally Posted by hammegk View Post
Good question.
At least in the Anthropic Principal sense, what I see around me appears to strive for added complexity.
All of it (meaning life)? And all the time? Also, how do you define the anthropic principle and more importantly, why use it here?

Quote:
You see design & tuning and conclude time and chance are the reason, since no other factors are available to materialists.
Straw man. Natural selection is anything but random! You might want to clarify.
__________________
"Where there´s a will, there´s a lawyer" - Kinky Friedman
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture" - Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA
“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further” - Richard Dawkins
"Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes."

"Scientist" is a profession. Science is a method. "Scientism" is neither a political ideology, nor a religion.
Pastor Bentonit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2005, 09:08 AM   #247
Dragon
Graduate Poster
 
Dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,593
Originally Posted by hammegk View Post
Good question.

At least in the Anthropic Principal sense, what I see around me appears to strive for added complexity.

... snip ...
Who is the Anthropic Principal? Some senior figure at your High School?

Oh, and appearances can, of course, be deceptive.
The current Theory of Evolution does not require any "striving for comlpexity" or any striving at all, just variability, the occasional mutation and differential survival. All of which we know to exist.
Didn't some 14th century friar say, "Plurality should not be assumed without necessity"?
__________________
"We must favour verifiable evidence over private feeling. Otherwise we leave ourselves vulnerable to those who would obscure the truth."
Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason
Dragon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2005, 02:40 PM   #248
c4ts
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,420
Originally Posted by Dragon View Post
Who is the Anthropic Principal? Some senior figure at your High School?

Oh, and appearances can, of course, be deceptive.
The current Theory of Evolution does not require any "striving for comlpexity" or any striving at all, just variability, the occasional mutation and differential survival. All of which we know to exist.
Didn't some 14th century friar say, "Plurality should not be assumed without necessity"?
I think he was a monk. Anyway, by the end it didn't matter because he was excommunicated for calling the Pope a heretic...
c4ts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2005, 04:00 PM   #249
petre
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 887
For some odd reason, I woke up last night and suddenly had this thought:

ID claims that there is some intelligent entity (or entities, assuming singular for this paragraph) that was responsible. ID refuses to make any specific claims about this entity beyond that it was intelligent (they're trying to keep it simple to avoid looking like theism I imagine).

My question is, why does it even have to be an intelligent entity? Maybe there is a whole dimension of invisible astral enzimes that tend to mutate DNA strands to produce new, advantageous structures. Perhaps this dimension occasionally collides with our own plane of existance, and results in such events.

So I hereby proclaim that if evolution is not correct, then I believe it is some unintelligent entity or entities that actually caused the creation of certain forms of life. I refuse to make any further claims about this unintelligent entity beyond simply that I believe it is unintelligent. This new UD (Unintelligent Design) theory is every bit as valid as ID.
petre is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2005, 04:16 PM   #250
petre
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 887
And for a seperate point, a seperate post.

Instead of looking at the probability of a single unlikely advantageous mutation that appears to have actually occurred, why don't we examine the probability of all of the unlikely advantageous mutations that DIDN'T occur? At each point in evolution, there were probably hundreds, thousands, perhaps a near infinate number of directions it could have gone depending on what happened by chance. Looking over the vast history of evolution and looking for unlikely steps to prove an intelligence must have intervened, is a bit like looking back over old Powerball drawings for an unlikely combination (say "53, 43, 33, 23, 13, P:3") and then claiming that's proof of the same kind of intervention. The latter case is actually more believable, since some entities with intelligence are known actually exist and be directly involved in the generation.
petre is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2005, 04:27 PM   #251
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19,145
Invisible astral enzymes, the explanation for UD.

I'm really liking this.

~~ Paul
__________________
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz

RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2005, 04:32 PM   #252
petre
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 887
Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos View Post
Invisible astral enzymes, the explanation for UD.

I'm really liking this.

~~ Paul
Shhhh...they're really Flying Spaghetti Enzymes, but I'm trying not to give away my secret theistic agenda, since teaching about FSE's would be against the constitution.
petre is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th October 2005, 05:27 PM   #253
ohms
Graduate Poster
 
ohms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,329
You need to get the word 'Quantum' in there to make it truly believable

The transcripts have been very interesting and suprisingly amusing too. I'm looking forward to the next batch going up.
__________________
Long time lurker
ohms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2005, 02:46 AM   #254
H'ethetheth
fishy rocket scientist
 
H'ethetheth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: among the machines
Posts: 2,682
Originally Posted by petre View Post
For some odd reason, I woke up last night and suddenly had this thought:

ID claims that there is some intelligent entity (or entities, assuming singular for this paragraph) that was responsible. ID refuses to make any specific claims about this entity beyond that it was intelligent (they're trying to keep it simple to avoid looking like theism I imagine).

My question is, why does it even have to be an intelligent entity? Maybe there is a whole dimension of invisible astral enzimes that tend to mutate DNA strands to produce new, advantageous structures. Perhaps this dimension occasionally collides with our own plane of existance, and results in such events.

So I hereby proclaim that if evolution is not correct, then I believe it is some unintelligent entity or entities that actually caused the creation of certain forms of life. I refuse to make any further claims about this unintelligent entity beyond simply that I believe it is unintelligent. This new UD (Unintelligent Design) theory is every bit as valid as ID.
I had a very similar thought a few days ago. I was thinking more along the lines of Douglas Adams' improbability drive. These irreducibly complex things don't have to happen by chance if they can simply happen by improbability.
What if there were (what indeed, mr. Worf) fluctuations or possibly even reversals of the improbability field . What if these fluctuations aren't as rare as some of us usually think they are?
Evidence of improbability is of course all around us. For example, what are the odds that you'd turn up at exactly the point in the universe where you are right now? And let's not forget that flagellum, people! That is the kind of structure I call "undeniaby improbable".
I was going to write a highschool textbook about it and of course critically review this book, and get rich. But I felt I had to intervene on this. You're on the right track, but not quite at the right station.

Hail Adams, the visionary.

P.S: I won't speculate about the properties of the improbability field, because IF theory simply isn't that kind of theory.
P.P.S: Maybe we should make a compendium of theories that are both equally valid and equally silly as ID.
H'ethetheth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2005, 03:10 AM   #255
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 33,893
Another gem from Behe's cross-examination that I don't think has been posted yet:
Quote:
Q Back to my original question. What is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes?

A And I wonder, could -- am I permitted to know what I replied to your question the first time?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2005, 03:28 AM   #256
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Another gem from Behe's cross-examination that I don't think has been posted yet:
STOP! STOP!! YOU'RE KILLING ME!!

CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2005, 05:08 AM   #257
Moose
Self-Propelled Road Hazard
 
Moose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 418
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Another gem from Behe's cross-examination that I don't think has been posted yet:
Behe is the defense's star witness, isn't he?

. o O ( They're screwed. )
Moose is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2005, 05:26 AM   #258
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19,145
Would it have been okay if Rothschild had responded:

Q. Nothing of any substance that I could see.

~~ Paul
__________________
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz

RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2005, 05:27 AM   #259
Dr Adequate
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
There's only one Michael Behe
ONE Michael Behe
ONE Michael BEH ... E
There's only one Michael Behe
ONE Michael Behe...
Dr Adequate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2005, 06:47 AM   #260
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 33,893
Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos View Post
Would it have been okay if Rothschild had responded:

Q. Nothing of any substance that I could see.
Near enough!
Quote:
Q I don't think I got a reply, so I'm asking you...
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2005, 06:55 AM   #261
Flo
Illuminator
 
Flo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Haute-Savoie, France
Posts: 3,122
I read some of the transcript and it reminded me of the saying:

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with b******t"
Flo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2005, 07:00 AM   #262
headscratcher4
Philosopher
 
headscratcher4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,776
More fun from Penn. From the AP wire on the trial:

Ex-School Trustee 'Misspoke' on Evolution

A former school board member who denied saying creationism should be taught alongside evolution in high school biology classes changed his story Thursday after being confronted in court with TV news footage of him making such comments.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051028/...tkBHNlYwM3MTg-

Damn those cameras! Instruments of Satan!
__________________
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel.

-- Homer Simpson
headscratcher4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2005, 07:12 AM   #263
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 33,893
Originally Posted by headscratcher4 View Post
A former school board member who denied saying creationism should be taught alongside evolution in high school biology classes changed his story Thursday after being confronted in court with TV news footage of him making such comments.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051028/...tkBHNlYwM3MTg-

Damn those cameras! Instruments of Satan!
Quote:
I had it in my mind to make sure not to talk about creationism.
It's all a bit like Basil Fawlty trying not to mention the war.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2005, 07:19 AM   #264
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,468
Slight tangent:

Intelligent design loser in moot court

Quote:
In a mock courtroom case that revolved around the concept of intelligent design, a fictitious junior high school teacher likely would have lost his bid to teach the controversial theory.
Quote:
The case, which is similar to actual court cases, including one federal trial being held in Pennsylvania, involved an eighth-grade teacher who taught intelligent design despite a school district policy prohibiting the concept.
However....
Quote:
But Judge Carr stressed that their decision was not an indication on how they would rule if an actual case involving intelligent design or creationism versus evolution came before any of them.
Which makes it sound like their decision was based more on the quality of the presentation rather than the quality of the facts presented.

For what it's worth.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2005, 07:27 AM   #265
drkitten
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post

Which makes it sound like their decision was based more on the quality of the presentation rather than the quality of the facts presented.
Well, that's always the case in any legal proceeding.

For example, my reading of the transcript suggest that Behe crashed and burned on the witness stand (and the rest of the experts are bailing out precisely for that reason). My opinion might be tempered slightly if I had seen the actual testimony, but most likely, if I had seen Behe hemming and hawing and adjusting his collar and stammering as he got backed further and further into a corner, it would only have been strengthened.

But let's give credit where credit is due. Behe has successfully testified before in other cases without going down in flames. Rothschild is demonstrably brilliant at cross-examination. Given the same witness, the same environment, the same depositions, and the same facts, I don't think I could have done the same job. If the ACLU had been dumb enough to retain me, I would have lost the case for them....
drkitten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2005, 07:31 AM   #266
headscratcher4
Philosopher
 
headscratcher4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,776
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
It's all a bit like Basil Fawlty trying not to mention the war.
Which, of course, points up one of the great and interesting facets of this whole thing...the willingness of the other side (i.e. the creationists) to lie and dissemble to make their case. Beginning witht he premise that it is acceptable science (so acceptable that the football game between the sides would be like the University of Michigan playing the University of Alaska, Nome in U.of M. stadium). Then they have to hide the real agenda...which is to re-introduce religion into the science curriculum via the science of "ID" which is just a cleaned up version of creationism. I guess what I am trying to get to is that it is politics and poltical strategy (a'la the civil rights movemtn) not scientific discovery or research that is driving this cart...
__________________
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel.

-- Homer Simpson
headscratcher4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2005, 07:34 AM   #267
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19,145
Jump ship! Jump ship! This is so much fun I'm getting the heebie-jeebies.

Is that cruel of me?

~~ Paul
__________________
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz

RIP Mr. Skinny, Tim
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2005, 08:11 AM   #268
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
But it's worse than just "not science." These are supposedly "Christians..."

Quote:
Do not make false statements to one another; because you have put away the old man with all his doings... Colossians 3:9
Quote:
But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, don't boast and don't lie against the truth." James 3:14
Quote:
I have not written to you because you don't know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth." 1 John 2:21
And most importantly...
Quote:
DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS
(Which was apparently literally written in stone at one point...)

Why is it they never seem to read their own book? Why do their fellow Christians never condemn them for this behavior? They seem to be willing to flush all of the teachings of their religion just to make sure nobody contradicts a fairy tale.
delphi_ote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2005, 08:38 AM   #269
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 33,893
Originally Posted by delphi_ote View Post
But it's worse than just "not science." These are supposedly "Christians..."

Why is it they never seem to read their own book?
I was wondering about this. I know that there was a 1631 edition of the Bible that accidentally had the word "not" omitted from the seventh commandment, so I've just checked the Authorised Version (AKA King James Bible) to make sure it's there in the ninth commandment. It is. Maybe they just don't consider non-creationists to be their "neighbours."

Incidentally, why did these clowns decide that a seventeenth century English translation was inerrant?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2005, 08:39 AM   #270
Dr Adequate
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
Quote:
Former Dover Area School board member Bill Buckingham struggled to clarify Thursday how he raised $850 at his church for copies of the textbook "Of Pandas and People" even though earlier he gave a deposition saying he didn't know how the books were donated to the high school.
I love this guy.
Dr Adequate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2005, 08:42 AM   #271
Dr Adequate
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Incidentally, why did these clowns decide that a seventeenth century English translation was inerrant?
And why didn't the seventeenth century translators notice that they were inerrant and mention it?
Dr Adequate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2005, 08:43 AM   #272
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 33,893
From another column by Mike Argento:
Quote:
It was like he had a Homer Simpson moment. He was thinking "Don't say creationism. Don't say creationism. Don't say creationism." And then he opens his yap and says "creationism."

D'oh!
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2005, 08:45 AM   #273
Dr Adequate
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
So where are the transcripts?

I guess the people at talkorigins are laughing too hard to type.
Dr Adequate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2005, 09:19 AM   #274
hammegk
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,413
Originally Posted by delphi_ote View Post
But it's worse than just "not science." These are supposedly "Christians..."
Perhaps. Which suitable studies that test your hypothesis do you find most convincing?


Originally Posted by H'ethetheth
Evidence of improbability is of course all around us. For example, what are the odds that you'd turn up at exactly the point in the universe where you are right now? And let's not forget that flagellum, people! That is the kind of structure I call "undeniaby improbable".
Originally Posted by petri
My question is, why does it even have to be an intelligent entity? Maybe there is a whole dimension of invisible astral enzimes that tend to mutate DNA strands to produce new, advantageous structures. Perhaps this dimension occasionally collides with our own plane of existance, and results in such events.
I find out-of-the-box thinking more interesting than regurgitation of liturgy.


Originally Posted by Dragon
Who is the Anthropic Principal? Some senior figure at your High School?
Quote:
Oh, and appearances can, of course, be deceptive.
Agreed, yet appearance via perception is all we have to work with sfaik.


Quote:
The current Theory of Evolution does not require any "striving for complexity" or any striving at all,
No, it doesn't.


Originally Posted by Pastor B.
Natural selection is anything but random! You might want to clarify.
Timing of specific environment & timing of rna-dna available for mutation is not random?

Or does environment specify and direct mutation? LOL.




And for the pedants, yes it should have been "principle" not "principal".
hammegk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2005, 09:24 AM   #275
Dr Adequate
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 17,766
Hey, hammy, you've gatecrashed this party.

I can tell you don't belong here because the invite said "huge smug grins to be worn", and you're the only person here not wearing one.
Dr Adequate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2005, 09:26 AM   #276
Bronze Dog
Copper Alloy Canid
 
Bronze Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,993
Originally Posted by hammegk View Post
Timing of specific environment & timing of rna-dna available for mutation is not random?

Or does environment specify and direct mutation? LOL.
Once again, I get the feeling that hammy doesn't know what random means.
__________________
Stop Sylvia Browne

Warning: Beware of contaminated water supplies! Suspected source of contamination: Sarah-I

A non-Rockstar Rambler and dissector of Doggerel
Bronze Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2005, 09:31 AM   #277
drkitten
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
Originally Posted by BronzeDog View Post
Once again, I get the feeling that hammy doesn't know what random means.
Why should "random" be unique in this regard?
drkitten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2005, 09:37 AM   #278
hammegk
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,413
Originally Posted by BronzeDog View Post
Once again, I get the feeling that hammy doesn't know what random means.
Do you, in the sense you've actually contemplated the implications of the word?

Originally Posted by dkitten
Why should "random" be unique in this regard?
Oh! You made a funny!
hammegk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2005, 09:44 AM   #279
Bronze Dog
Copper Alloy Canid
 
Bronze Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,993
Originally Posted by hammegk View Post
Do you, in the sense you've actually contemplated the implications of the word?
Implications... such as?
__________________
Stop Sylvia Browne

Warning: Beware of contaminated water supplies! Suspected source of contamination: Sarah-I

A non-Rockstar Rambler and dissector of Doggerel
Bronze Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th October 2005, 09:49 AM   #280
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 33,893
Originally Posted by hammegk View Post
Quote:
Originally posted by Pastor Bentonit
Natural selection is anything but random! You might want to clarify.
Timing of specific environment & timing of rna-dna available for mutation is not random?

Or does environment specify and direct mutation?
Sorry, Hammy, but another of your strawmen is showing. That's not what the Pastor said. Mutation and natural selection are not the same process. Mutation is random; the process of natural selection which acts on the results of those mutations is driven by environmental pressures.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » Reference » Forum Spotlight

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:39 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.