Let us test Darwin, teacher says

[nonconformist]

I think the real question here is: "Who the hell spiked my milk with acid?"

 

[Bluemofia]

That is fine; as long as you allow for it being based on your very own reckognition that ID is allowable under the same falsification.

Wait, so how are you proposing ID is falsifiable? Because I can't see any way how it can be tested to see if it is falsifiable.

The resolving of the complexity is in knowing what can determine self-replication.

All it does is self replicate. And make occasional mistakes. They have used it to evolve programs with irreducible complexity, and have done it quite well.

So species cannot evolve beyond certain parameters in order for evolution to be true?

How is that cohesive?

Because evolution is not aiming for a certain destination, it is simply creatures changing over time to adapt to their environment. A half frog half cow would not be very sucessful. Also the parts are all wrong. The cow has internal heating, the frog has a metamorphasis stage, etc. It just doesn't happen so that they would have some of one, and some of another. It is more likely for it to evolve with some appearance to another, but still anatomically different. (Bats resemble birds, but no feathers, different wing structure, etc.)

So then; plants and animals evolved in distinct and separate lineage of mutation at different periods of history?

It then follows, abiogenesis was universal rather than a single event. If this is not true my original question remains unaswered.

It is "universal" in the sense that it is possible, but it doens't happen very often. Once it happened, life would monopolize the resources quickly, and abiogenesis won't have the amount of raw material for it to occur in even the time frame of billions of years.

This one:

And you missed my point; if this is true it is equally true of ID

It states a supernatural force comes and changes things pretty much randomly. If ID were true, then we would be seeing those half frog half cows more often.

 

[beingofone]

Erik Mesoy:

Planck's axiom of originality states that this is impossible on a macro-level.

Of course I have never had the same meal - I have had the same course, though.

Either way, your perpostness discloses your clear lack of understanding of the lollypop rule. Dr Rection's thesis on maximum betazedal drift makes this quite clear, too - haven't you read it?

My writings are perposterous?

No, it's a piece of randomly generated HTML that just happened to load when you clicked on the thread link. That is why you cannot make heads or tails of what I am writing.

Because blind cause and effect, that is mindless, randomly generates HTML that you are reading.

Because there can be no intelligence and design.

What is it you're trying to prove?

Then you must be ready to surrender.

Its ok with you if I'm not, right?


nonconformist:

I think the real question here is: "Who the hell spiked my milk with acid?"

There are no known disadvantages to learning something new.


Bluemafia:

Wait, so how are you proposing ID is falsifiable? Because I can't see any way how it can be tested to see if it is falsifiable.

I can't see any way how macroevolution can be tested to see if it is falsifiable without ID being held to the exact same standard.

Go ahead - specify a test that applies to macroevolution and does not apply to ID.

All it does is self replicate. And make occasional mistakes. They have used it to evolve programs with irreducible complexity, and have done it quite well.

And this proves programming works.

Is the computer that runs the simulation intelligently designed?

beingofone:
So species cannot evolve beyond certain parameters in order for evolution to be true?

How is that cohesive?

Mafia:
Because evolution is not aiming for a certain destination, it is simply creatures changing over time to adapt to their environment.

The destination is clearly mindless, chaotic, mind numbing techniques despite all evidence to the contrary.

A half frog half cow would not be very sucessful. Also the parts are all wrong. The cow has internal heating, the frog has a metamorphasis stage, etc. It just doesn't happen so that they would have some of one, and some of another. It is more likely for it to evolve with some appearance to another, but still anatomically different. (Bats resemble birds, but no feathers, different wing structure, etc.)

So then ID is true.

BO1:
It then follows, abiogenesis was universal rather than a single event. If this is not true my original question remains unaswered.


It is "universal" in the sense that it is possible, but it doens't happen very often. Once it happened, life would monopolize the resources quickly, and abiogenesis won't have the amount of raw material for it to occur in even the time frame of billions of years.

So in order for all the pieces of the puzzle to fit together, we must have an epic and universal spontaneous abiogenes in a very narrow time frame.

I read a very similar story - you may have heard of it - it is called the creation story.

It states a supernatural force comes and changes things pretty much randomly. If ID were true, then we would be seeing those half frog half cows more often.

Oh of course; we would be much smarter than any God because we can write programs simulating mutation.

We know any possible God would be a dummy and create half cow and half frog and therefore, with unbiased clear logic, there cannot be a God.

The world is full of talented people who don't think so.

 

[Adamb0mb]

BeingOfOne,

How many gods are there? And how do you know?

 

[carlosMM]

carlosMM:



Behe did not, under oath in court, say that ID is not scientific. He stated it was testable and could be falsified and was science.

I read some of the transcripts. If you are sure of this, please provide a link as what I read was the exact opposite.

you can find that here on CFC, even!
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=147303&highlight=Michael+Behe

Eric Rothschild, plaintiffs’ lawyer, wants to prove just that! His instrument of choice is cross examination. Like a beast of prey he circles witness Behe. At first, the lawyer stays at a distance, asks apparently harmless questions. In truth he leads Behe it into a quagmire of contradictions: "You state that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory?" – "Yes." – "If you speak of a scientific theory, do you not define that term rather strictly, as the Academy of Sciences does?" – "Yes, that is correct." (…) "and, according to the definition of the Academy, Intelligent Design would not be a scientific theory, correct?" Now Behe is caught. He must admit the being "not certain", and according to a lax definition, "astrology would also be a scientific theory". After all, he says, a theory does "not have to be true". In this moment, he himself has down-graded Intelligent Design to pure speculation. And in this vein, things continue: "Is it true that not one article supports Intelligently Design, providing an independent consultant reviewed it?" – "Thousands of articles mention the ›non-reducible complexity‹, one or two also ›Intelligent Design‹." – "Once more: not one peer reviewed article supports your theory, correct?" – "Yes, correct."
The cross examination reaches its high point when lawyer Rothschild reads out the definition of the intelligent Design from exactly that Panda book, which Behe recommends to the pupils. There, it says that "the different ways of life developed abruptly with the help of a carrier of intelligence", already with "pronounced characteristics", fish e.g. "with fins". – "It’a God-centered theory, isn’t it?" lawyer Rothschild asks and forces Behe to dissociate itself from a book which he co-authored. These sentences, Behe says, are "badly worded" and the conclusions "provisional". The lawyer follows up: "If one exchanges the words ›carrier of intelligence‹ by ›Christian Creator‹, the definition would by no means lose its sense, right?" Perhaps the lawyer found the finger print of the religion in this moment.

Also included is a partial transcription on where Behe admitted that there are no peer reviewed articles on ID.


So, Behe admits it is religion, the court finds it is religion, and nobody has ever been able to give any sound prediciton from it

 

[IglooDame]

Sorry, did someone mention my name?

Oh of course; we would be much smarter than any God because we can write programs simulating mutation.

We know any possible God would be a dummy and create half cow and half frog and therefore, with unbiased clear logic, there cannot be a God.

The world is full of talented people who don't think so.

How is half cow and half frog dumb? There might be another planet on which someone is asserting that having whole cows and whole frogs is clearly dumb, thus the lack of them proves the nonexistence of god.

For all we know, Earth IS God's mutation laboratory experiment.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

We have creatures that are half human and half any-earliy-ancestor-back-in-history. Just go half as far back.

Erik Mesoy:

My writings are perposterous?

No, it's a piece of randomly generated HTML that just happened to load when you clicked on the thread link. That is why you cannot make heads or tails of what I am writing.

Because blind cause and effect, that is mindless, randomly generates HTML that you are reading.

Because there can be no intelligence and design.

No, it's not your writings, it's you who's constantly violating the betazedal maximum drift adjustment.

Markov chains are nice at generating text such as you put out, quite randomly. So is the Chomskybot.

Blind cause and effect - imagine that you have 20 "values". Remove the lowest half, then for each remaining value, copy it, adjust each of the copies to 90%-110% of the previous value, and repeat ad infinitum... the drift will be towards larger values.

Intelligence and design, you say? These are not the features you are looking for. You can go about your business. *handwave*

 

[beingofone]

Adamb0mb:

How many gods are there? And how do you know?

Identical to the number of universe that are in existence.

Because we have stable laws of physics.


carlosMM:

Also included is a partial transcription on where Behe admitted that there are no peer reviewed articles on ID.

Where does he admit it is not science, I don`t see it, could you quote the statement?

So, Behe admits it is religion, the court finds it is religion, and nobody has ever been able to give any sound prediciton from it

I see it infered by peer review - big deal.

I still did not see what you said at all, in fact he said it could be falsified and tested. No, I will not spend an hour digging to find that statement.

It does not matter because I do not use Behe`s arguments so whatever.


IglooDude:

How is half cow and half frog dumb?

Why are you asking me?

Did you follow the context of the conversation?

If it is not bumb - go tell the evolutionists, not me.

There might be another planet on which someone is asserting that having whole cows and whole frogs is clearly dumb, thus the lack of them proves the nonexistence of god.

I do so appreciate you grabbing a snip out of context, spinning it into my argument, then ignore the fact the statement was made by several evolutionists to the opposite of what you are saying.

So Batman; before you swoop in to help your common atheists/agnostics from a bad ol believer - make sure you know whats going on first. Could you guys have a meeting and get your "scientific theory" straight?

For all we know, Earth IS God's mutation laboratory experiment.

First proof for God`s nonexistence and now a postulate for God.

You see, I can actually point out the contradictions. Unlike most who just say "you do not make any sense" and then fail completely to point it out.

Rarely does anyone back up there statements, they just proclaim it without proof as if saying it makes it true.


Erik Mesoy,

CYA smarty pants.

You do realize you base your decisions in emotion rather than logic right? You want sooooo bad to show I am cooky - and yet I come right back with cogent thought.

Go scratch your wooden head till you figure that one out.

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling. Discuss issues, do not insult other members.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Erik Mesoy]

No, you've done an excellent job of showing a lot of stuff by yourself. Cogent thought for example.

Error. Head not wooden. Error. Pants void of measurable intelligence.

I'll not remark on what it takes to conclude that a mathematical analogy is based on emotion. This from the man who thinks you can divide by zero and get infinity.

And in conclusion, read about evolution and stop attacking strawmen.

 

[Bluemofia]

I can't see any way how macroevolution can be tested to see if it is falsifiable without ID being held to the exact same standard.

Go ahead - specify a test that applies to macroevolution and does not apply to ID.

We test to see how populations change over time based on shifts in their environment. Now if anyone has the patience to test it out over a few thousand years, we will get some undeniable evidence that macroevolution works. But it is a good assumption to believe that if we have species divergence within the time frame of 100 years, shouldn't we have genus divergence in longer time, followed by family divergence in even longer, then order divergence, then class divergence, next phylum, followed by kingdom, and finally domain?

And this proves programming works.
Is the computer that runs the simulation intelligently designed?

It is designed to test evolution. We have programs that know how to do absolutly nothing except copy themselves; the environment randomly causes errors in their program once in a while, and they have evolved irreducable complexity in a relativly short time frame of 10,000 generations.

The destination is clearly mindless, chaotic, mind numbing techniques despite all evidence to the contrary.

Chaotic? How is adapting to your environment chaotic? It's clearly not random, and it is clearly proceeding in an orderly fashion towards a creature best suited to its environment.

So then ID is true.

You just love throwing that phrase in without justification, don't you? I just put evidence against ID, and you just randomly say that it is true. If ID were true, we would see those freaks and more, yet we don't. So thus ID can not be true.

So in order for all the pieces of the puzzle to fit together, we must have an epic and universal spontaneous abiogenes in a very narrow time frame.

I read a very similar story - you may have heard of it - it is called the creation story.

Nope. We only need it to happen once, and then that one cell would easily self replicate faster than it would take for another abiogenesis event to occur in that time frame, and monopolize the resources, rendering the probability for it to happen again to be pretty much 0.

Oh of course; we would be much smarter than any God because we can write programs simulating mutation.

We know any possible God would be a dummy and create half cow and half frog and therefore, with unbiased clear logic, there cannot be a God.

The world is full of talented people who don't think so.

Ah ha! So you do admit that ID is fully based on religion. There we go. The basis of your arguments. God of gaps. We do not like the idea that evolution is true, so we invent stuff to counter it, using poorly computed probability and half developed logic to cover it up as Creationism.

Yeah, I can simply counter it with last Tuesdayism. Disprove that.

 

[carlosMM]

I still did not see what you said at all, in fact he said it could be falsified and tested. No, I will not spend an hour digging to find that statement.

and this outs you as the typical religionist - why don't you bring one of those transscripts you boasted about, hu?

Go scratch your wooden head till you figure that one out.

and again, you prove to be a religionist: aggressively insulting people instead of bringing any substance. Pity. Reported!

 

[beingofone]

No, you've done an excellent job of showing a lot of stuff by yourself. Cogent thought for example.

Yup; it just contradicts your blind belief system and you do not like that.

I'll not remark on what it takes to conclude that a mathematical analogy is based on emotion. This from the man who thinks you can divide by zero and get infinity.

The empty set is everywhere and everywhen. There are not more than one empty set.

All things are compared to what they are not.

Space not spaces - singular. Non dualism is a clue.

And in conclusion, read about evolution and stop attacking strawmen.

Then why no rebuttle of the issues? Blind faith threatened maybe?

We test to see how populations change over time based on shifts in their environment. Now if anyone has the patience to test it out over a few thousand years, we will get some undeniable evidence that macroevolution works. But it is a good assumption to believe that if we have species divergence within the time frame of 100 years, shouldn't we have genus divergence in longer time, followed by family divergence in even longer, then order divergence, then class divergence, next phylum, followed by kingdom, and finally domain?

Then we factor in human intelligence and the designed migration to a conducive environment and *bingo* - there you clearly see intelligence/design.

beingofone
And this proves programming works.
Is the computer that runs the simulation intelligently designed?

Bluemofia:
It is designed to test evolution. We have programs that know how to do absolutly nothing except copy themselves; the environment randomly causes errors in their program once in a while, and they have evolved irreducable complexity in a relativly short time frame of 10,000 generations.

So we design a program with intellect to develope mutation in cellular division and see it in operation.

Okay.

Chaotic? How is adapting to your environment chaotic? It's clearly not random, and it is clearly proceeding in an orderly fashion towards a creature best suited to its environment.

Ah - clearly a pattern, yup.

You just love throwing that phrase in without justification, don't you? I just put evidence against ID, and you just randomly say that it is true. If ID were true, we would see those freaks and more, yet we don't. So thus ID can not be true.

Each step of the way, you are clearly developing a case for Intelligent Design, you are just not aware of it.

How can you assume we would see exponential hybrid species with ID? I say, just the opposite.

If macro-evolution is true, we would see hybrid with no clear cut species. Therefore the theory of evolution is intelligently designed with huge gaps of logic.

In other words; if gene change is due to random cause and effect it cannot be due to environment and visa versa. Evolution tries to have its cake and eat it to, its either random or environment not both.

Nope. We only need it to happen once, and then that one cell would easily self replicate faster than it would take for another abiogenesis event to occur in that time frame, and monopolize the resources, rendering the probability for it to happen again to be pretty much 0.

Then my question remains - you know - the one about animals and plants.

Ah ha! So you do admit that ID is fully based on religion. There we go. The basis of your arguments. God of gaps. We do not like the idea that evolution is true, so we invent stuff to counter it, using poorly computed probability and half developed logic to cover it up as Creationism.

I discount abiogenesis and macroevolution because it does not hold water, scientific or through logic. If it did, I would embrace it.

Just because an idea is religious/spirtual does not automatically mean it is not scientific or logical. The study of consciousness is a good example.

That would mean, by default; atheists and scientists cannot, under any circumstances, have opinions on spiritual/religious issues. Clearly they have become very vocal.

That would be akin to saying; since Einstein used his spirituality(I am not saying what he believed) to gain insights, his theories are not valid.

Yeah, I can simply counter it with last Tuesdayism. Disprove that.

No, I say, ID is credible because of clear implication the universe is designed with intelligence and carries with it predictive power.

DNA is like an incredibly complex program. Why should we be looking for pattern/design in a random universe? that is just hooey not matter how you want to dress it up.

 

[beingofone]

and this outs you as the typical religionist - why don't you bring one of those transscripts you boasted about, hu?

Why don`t you just simply point out what you said he was supposed to have declared under oath?

and again, you prove to be a religionist: aggressively insulting people instead of bringing any substance. Pity. Reported!

Oh I see - we completely ignore his insults, we focus on the "typical religionist".

How fair of you

 

[carlosMM]

beinofone, you keep talking about

clear implication the universe is designed with intelligence

care to bring even the slightest PROOF?

 

[beingofone]

Carlos,
Why should I talk to you when you just reported me for trolling when I was clearly responding to a multitude of insults?

 

[beingofone]

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling. Discuss issues, do not insult other members.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumrules.php

You need to clear this up Mathilda.

Its okay to insult the "religious guy"?

Then, when he responds, we warn him?

Moderator Action: Public discussion of moderator actions is not allowed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[warpus]

In other words; if gene change is due to random cause and effect it cannot be due to environment and visa versa. Evolution tries to have its cake and eat it to, its either random or environment not both.

Mutations are random - natural selection isn't.

Of course you're probably just going to say something like "The singularity of intelligence underlines the duality of man. ID is fact." and leave it at that.

 

[Bluemofia]

Then we factor in human intelligence and the designed migration to a conducive environment and *bingo* - there you clearly see intelligence/design.

No, we are not altering the organisms. You want us to test evolution, so we simply test it by altering the environement. And the creatures would adapt to it. And while you are suggesting that we factor the fact that we are altering the environement ourselves to state that it is ID, but you convienently overlook the fact that nature changes overtime by itself without human intervention. I see no intelligence when nature is changing without human intervention.

So we design a program with intellect to develope mutation in cellular division and see it in operation.

Okay.

Dispite the fact that they did absolutly nothing aside from having the computer randomly alter the code (randomly change things, not purposly moving it towards some goal), and the programs would then become irreducibly complex by themselves? And every trial produces a different program that does the same thing?

Ah - clearly a pattern, yup.

If you fail to understand that there is no randomness in adapting to the environment, then you fail to understand evolution.

Each step of the way, you are clearly developing a case for Intelligent Design, you are just not aware of it.

How can you assume we would see exponential hybrid species with ID? I say, just the opposite.

I say we would because ID does not account for randomness, no intermediate gradual change, and claims species appear out of nowhere.

If macro-evolution is true, we would see hybrid with no clear cut species. Therefore the theory of evolution is intelligently designed with huge gaps of logic.

Not quite. A half one species and a half another is not well suited to its evironement. Thus it would not be likely to survive, and the two species that it would be half of would go in their own seperate ways, without half and halves surviving.

In other words; if gene change is due to random cause and effect it cannot be due to environment and visa versa. Evolution tries to have its cake and eat it to, its either random or environment not both.

It is random. Mutations are happening on a daily basis; the ones that are not fit to survive die out. The ones that are fit to survive pass on their genes. When the environment changes, the ones that are fit to survive in the new environment pass on their genes, and the ones that aren't don't.

Then my question remains - you know - the one about animals and plants.

Well now, that is not abiogenesis. That is simply endosymbiosis. Humans have endosymbiotes on the non cellular level. We have bacteria in our intestines that help produce vitamins for us. That is not abiogenesis. That is symbiosis.

I discount abiogenesis and macroevolution because it does not hold water, scientific or through logic. If it did, I would embrace it.

Instead, you embrace the bible as a source of scientific knowledge.

Just because an idea is religious/spirtual does not automatically mean it is not scientific or logical. The study of consciousness is a good example.

That would mean, by default; atheists and scientists cannot, under any circumstances, have opinions on spiritual/religious issues. Clearly they have become very vocal.

There is no spirituality or religiousness in evolution. Quite the contrary, people are trying to use that to explain scientific things. Flat Earthers exist. So do Geocentrists. Clearly they are advocating that religion is greater than science at explaining natural phenomenon. How is God coming in and changing/designing things science? How is something unobservable science? Why is it that you consider ID to be science when you clearly mentioned that God plays a pivotal role in it, and how science must be predictable, and observable?

Besides, atheists can have opinions on spiritual issues; they can give their opinion on other religions practices and their opinion of the religion. And so can religious people on science, just that they have a tendancey to confuse/mix religion as science. Scientists can be both scientific and religious. They just do a good job not mixing both together. (Einstein a good example. And so is Newton.)

That would be akin to saying; since Einstein used his spirituality(I am not saying what he believed) to gain insights, his theories are not valid.

It would be valid if it does not rely on supernatural events, it to be predictable, it to be explanative and along with a few other critera. But if it relies on supernatural events, unpredictable, like in the case of ID, it is not valid.

No, I say, ID is credible because of clear implication the universe is designed with intelligence and carries with it predictive power.

Universe designed with intelligence? Or life adapted to the universe? ID seems to hold the thought that the universe is perfect for our life, thus it is designed. Not that life molded itself to the universe. We only know of one type of life. There could be other types of life in a universe not perfect for our needs.

It is akin to saying how the tropics are intelligently designed because tropical animals live there, and if the environment was different, such as a polar environment, then life would be impossible. The designed universe is clearly ignoring the possibility for other life, as well as the idea that the universe came before life, and life adapted to the universe.

Ok. How is it predictive? What does ID predict would happen to life 10 million years from now?

If it predicts something else, please explain. And don't tell us to read your old posts, because they don't explain it, or we read the wrong ones, and we have no idea which post you are talking about.

DNA is like an incredibly complex program. Why should we be looking for pattern/design in a random universe? that is just hooey not matter how you want to dress it up.

DNA can self replicate with just 6 nucleotides. Lipids automatically form bilayers when put in water. Protiens automatically conform to a shape when the temperature/ph changes. It is basic chemistry.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

The empty set is everywhere and everywhen. There are not more than one empty set.

All things are compared to what they are not.

Space not spaces - singular. Non dualism is a clue.

I'll decline to listen to your odd ramblings until you demonstrate that you've understood Ivan E. Rection's thesis on this matter. I linked to it already.

 

[carlosMM]

beingofone, instead of whining about my posting style, why don't you bring evidence?
a) a link/pdf/other access to one of those many transscripts would be welcome
b) prove that the universe is intelligently designed.

Please?