User Tag List

Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 3456789 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 171

Thread: The evolution game is up!!!

  1. #76
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    hmm. i believe that the theory of evolution will most likely not stay exactly the same, but will evolve itself. to rationalize however, natural selection is very much a fact, and so thus proving one of the primary aspects of evolution. it is however, a theory, and not complete. people of reason like myself, unlike the theists, do not pretend to know everything. that said i believe that science can provide more satisfactory answers than the bible (in my opinion mind u )
    it annoys me how the creationists sometimes fabricate the idea that there is much debate as to the validity of evolution amongst the scientific community, when evolution is the generally accepted theory of life, no matter how ridiculous you think it is.

  2. #77
    Over 500 post club PlastikBuddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Still going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it- but now looking up.
    Posts
    650
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by death2impiety View Post
    Cite sources.
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li.../l_011_01.html
    http://web.archive.org/web/200110311...om/peepers.htm


    It doesn't explain how an ability evolved, it asserts that it did. And merely explains the process of the decomposition.
    from source-
    The inefficient regulation of PcpC is evidently the key to the whole process. So far as biologists can tell, a recent mutation that changed the deployment of this enzyme is what made PCP degradation possible for this bacterium. It also happens that both PcpC and the first enzyme in the process are now slightly optimized for dealing with PCP; they handle it better than the corresponding enzymes in strains of S. chlorophenolica that use PcpC only in its normal role, but not nearly as well as would be expected for an old, well adapted system. These factors, combined with the fact that PCP is not known to occur naturally, make a strong circumstantial case that this system has evolved very recently.
    Seems good to me.
    I didn't say that it was related to IC, but that the paper also uses junk dna as evidence against ID and I pointed out that that theory has been and is in the process of being debunked.
    I'm saying there is no "debunking" going on. I don't believe that junk DNA is a strong argument against ID because a creator could conceivably have chosen to include it for reasons of his own.
    "Those who have crossed
    With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
    Remember us--if at all--not as lost
    Violent souls, but only
    As the hollow men
    The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot
    γνῶθι σεαυτόν

  3. #78
    Maximeee's Husband death2impiety's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    1,318
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2306
    Quote Originally Posted by mighty_duck View Post
    My answer was directed at the evocation of magic as an acceptable explanation that "works", not against the possibility of a supernatural being.
    I was trying to ellaborate on the "magic" joke to try to give you insight as to how God works. It isn't by magic but by the nature of His being and the tools he has at his disposal. By the law of conservation of mass and energy, matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed correct? If a Being is able to bring the material world into existence (creating mass and energy) He is non-material/spiritual/on a different material plain than the "natural universe" and has abilities that observers from the material/created world are unfamiliar with and unable to imagine.


    Of course not. But the reason is that we first recognize paintings as artificial.
    A painting is not artificial it is material. A painting is only "artificial" in the sense that it represent something else (like a person or place) that it truly isn't. The different parts that make up the painting are not artificial, they are material and they have been assembled by an intelligent source. We are able to recognize that.

    Do you agree that a painting is not artificial?

    There are genetic algorithms that are capable of evolving. As observers, we would have a hard time telling a "designed" algorithm from an "evolved" one.
    I'd better stay away from this one. I know nothing of algorithms aside from their mathematical uses in computer programs. Maybe for my own education you can provide me with a link that explains biological algorithms.


    Thousands and thousands of biologists of all stripes disagree with you. Could it be that they looked in to the issue a bit more closely than you have?
    It could be. It could also be that they have naturalist presuppositions that blind them to obvious supernatural alternatives that have lead to the propagation of their biased interpretation of reality. Is that possible?

    If it doesn't matter about god, then why bring out the design argument? The design argument is a method of "inferring" god, not of disproving evolution.
    The design argument is a method of discovering truth and putting a tired naturalist paradigm to rest.

    Maybe you could tell us what exactly is inadequate?
    How did the first cell evolve?

  4. #79
    Old Timer mighty_duck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    portland, or
    Posts
    418
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 12 Times in 12 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    790
    Quote Originally Posted by death2impiety View Post
    A painting is not artificial it is material. A painting is only "artificial" in the sense that it represent something else (like a person or place) that it truly isn't. The different parts that make up the painting are not artificial, they are material and they have been assembled by an intelligent source. We are able to recognize that.

    Do you agree that a painting is not artificial?
    The combination of canvas and paints (even if separately are natural) is artificial. We recognize things that are artifical because we know (generally) what man can do and we know (generally) what nature can do.

    We'll recognize an abstract painting as being artificial just as easily as the mona lisa.

    Quote Originally Posted by death2impiety View Post
    I'd better stay away from this one. I know nothing of algorithms aside from their mathematical uses in computer programs. Maybe for my own education you can provide me with a link that explains biological algorithms.
    This is a good place to start:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithms



    Quote Originally Posted by death2impiety View Post
    It could be. It could also be that they have naturalist presuppositions that blind them to obvious supernatural alternatives that have lead to the propagation of their biased interpretation of reality. Is that possible?
    Naturalists actually do not have any special presuppositions - it is a lack of supernatural presupposition. And there are plenty of Christian biologists that have come to the same conclusions. Are they biased too?

    Quote Originally Posted by death2impiety View Post
    The design argument is a method of discovering truth and putting a tired naturalist paradigm to rest.
    Possibly. But it does nothing to discredit evolution. It could easily be the the creator used evolution to make his designs.

    Quote Originally Posted by death2impiety View Post
    How did the first cell evolve?
    Short answer - we don't know.
    The first cell is not covered by the theory of evolution though. If you want to discuss it, it should go in another thread.

  5. #80
    Maximeee's Husband death2impiety's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    1,318
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2306
    Quote Originally Posted by mighty_duck View Post
    The combination of canvas and paints (even if separately are natural) is artificial. We recognize things that are artifical because we know (generally) what man can do and we know (generally) what nature can do.

    We'll recognize an abstract painting as being artificial just as easily as the mona lisa.
    By using the terms artificial and material we are referring to making a distinction between two different types of matter, some which are "natural" or "material" (trees, rocks, or even people from the evolutionary perspective) and some which have been "designed" and are "artificial." (houses, rock walls, art work).

    So, okay I can agree that a painting is artificial in that it is not "natural" by conventional definition. In fact every single facet of a painting is designed, from the material it is painted on, to the order in which to paint has been applied to represent...well anything!

    As for abstract works of art I think that you are making a good point. They are oftentimes produced by acts of chance, and are a great example of how even things that may appear externally to be "natural" are not!

    This is a good place to start:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithms
    As a smart man once said:
    Oh! An encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone at any time?!?!? That must be the place to learn I guess I'll find a source elsewhere.

    Naturalists actually do not have any special presuppositions - it is a lack of supernatural presupposition. And there are plenty of Christian biologists that have come to the same conclusions. Are they biased too?
    All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms).


    Possibly. But it does nothing to discredit evolution. It could easily be the the creator used evolution to make his designs.
    Not exactly easy.
    http://www.carm.org/evolution/evodds.htm


    Short answer - we don't know.
    You guys and your scapegoats.
    Then, what was the first "thing" that evolution had it's kick off with? Was it a single cell or a multi-celled organism? Tell me about that a little bit.

  6. #81
    Science Lover
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    South Bend, IN
    Posts
    1,968
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1456
    I find it extremely amusing that the term, "genetic algorithm" is used to label a complex, highly ordered and sophisticated computer program that was obviously designed by a highly intelligent human being.

    Talk about an oxymoron !!!!
    Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
    Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

  7. #82
    Journeyman macguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    148
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
    ID has failed to provide even a single example of irreducible complexity. That's what I'm sayiong- science is working, and in a roundabout way, ID helps further the cause of evolution by pointing out gaps in our understanding.
    Again, why do you repeatedly insist on asserting things rather than PROVING it? You haven't demonstrated anything but mock IC as to how wrong it is but never a demonstration of a working and observable model of the flagellum evolving. I presented articles that refuted that article very thoroughly enough to make it nothing more but good science story-telling.

    Design has never been detected. What would design look like? How would it differ from an evolved structure?
    Design would be organized complexity with the job of working for a purpose. Easy...If i were to find an arrowhead, I would conclude and any sane person would say that it is designed. IC is one way of detecting a design structure...You act as if you refuted the concept.
    The voiceless, the wasted...You soaked your hearts in gasoline. Now light it up and burn.

  8. #83
    Old Timer mighty_duck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    portland, or
    Posts
    418
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 12 Times in 12 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    790
    Quote Originally Posted by death2impiety View Post
    As a smart man once said:
    Oh! An encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone at any time?!?!? That must be the place to learn I guess I'll find a source elsewhere.
    Wikipedia is at least as acurate as Britanica, and has well referenced sources. It is ove 99% acccurate, and therefore is a god default position to start with.

    Quote Originally Posted by death2impiety View Post
    All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms).
    I said special presuppositions. Of course they presuppose that reality exists and other basic things.

    Quote Originally Posted by death2impiety View Post
    What are long odds for an intelligent designer? Assuming extreme intelligence, this designer could have used evolution for his purposes. Therefore ID is compatible with evolution.


    Quote Originally Posted by death2impiety View Post
    you guys and your scapegoats.
    Then, what was the first "thing" that evolution had it's kick off with? Was it a single cell or a multi-celled organism? Tell me about that a little bit.
    Scapegoats?
    I admited we don't know. That doesn't mean that godidit is a better answer. There will always be questions left unanswered, but so what?

    Incidentally, how did God create things?

    To answer your question, chances are it was a single cell organism.

  9. #84
    Over 500 post club PlastikBuddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Still going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it- but now looking up.
    Posts
    650
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by macguy View Post
    Again, why do you repeatedly insist on asserting things rather than PROVING it? You haven't demonstrated anything but mock IC as to how wrong it is but never a demonstration of a working and observable model of the flagellum evolving. I presented articles that refuted that article very thoroughly enough to make it nothing more but good science story-telling.
    Heres several models. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella
    I have more than just mocked IC. I have shown that it has struck out.
    Design would be organized complexity with the job of working for a purpose. Easy...If i were to find an arrowhead, I would conclude and any sane person would say that it is designed. IC is one way of detecting a design structure...You act as if you refuted the concept.
    Malarkey. Do you have any idea how often naturally chipped stones are mistaken for intenionally-created tools? How do you clearly diferentiate between design and evolution? Saying its obvious isn't good enough if you're basing pretty much the entire ID movement on it.
    "Those who have crossed
    With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
    Remember us--if at all--not as lost
    Violent souls, but only
    As the hollow men
    The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot
    γνῶθι σεαυτόν

  10. #85
    Journeyman macguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    148
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
    Episode 1: Darwin’s Dangerous Idea


    Darwin's Dangerous Idea (Discovery Insitute)




    Refutation here.

    Our eye movements and their control: part 1
    Our eye movements and their control: part 2

    I'm saying there is no "debunking" going on. I don't believe that junk DNA is a strong argument against ID because a creator could conceivably have chosen to include it for reasons of his own.
    Also consider the fact that a lot of junk DNA is now finding out that it has a function. So I guess junk DNA isn't science eh? Since of course, IC can't be science either!
    The voiceless, the wasted...You soaked your hearts in gasoline. Now light it up and burn.

  11. #86
    Journeyman macguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    148
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
    My first link refuted just that!!! You have shown nothing...


    Do you have any idea how often naturally chipped stones are mistaken for intenionally-created tools?
    Yes, something such as the pebble has sometimes been mistakenly considered to be designed by those who don't investigate things carefully. Not only must it exhibit design, but it must be organized and have a purpose. Evolution on the other hand argues that everything is the result of random processes. IC is good for differentiating between design and evolution...Also, I would argue that the origin of life has so much evidence against it, that it argues for a designer. There are only two explanations, either it was done by design or by naturalistic processes.

    Here are some more details. In this link, you'll see William Dembski's specified complexity argument. More specifically is this blog.
    The voiceless, the wasted...You soaked your hearts in gasoline. Now light it up and burn.

  12. #87
    Over 500 post club PlastikBuddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Still going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it- but now looking up.
    Posts
    650
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    482

    I'm not sure what you're even trying to point out with these links.


    I skimmed those- seems like all they are is appeals to incredulity and moving the bar back. Oh- you can show how the IC eye is actually reducible to an eyespot? OK- well then now the eyespot itself is IC. The other two are just attempts to gee-whiz the skepticism right out of you.
    Also consider the fact that a lot of junk DNA is now finding out that it has a function. So I guess junk DNA isn't science eh? Since of course, IC can't be science either!
    What's your point? I already said I don't consider junk DNA to be a good anti-ID argument.
    "Those who have crossed
    With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
    Remember us--if at all--not as lost
    Violent souls, but only
    As the hollow men
    The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot
    γνῶθι σεαυτόν

  13. #88
    Over 500 post club PlastikBuddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Still going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it- but now looking up.
    Posts
    650
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by macguy View Post
    My first link refuted just that!!! You have shown nothing...
    Your link argued against one model. This article describes several.



    Yes, something such as the pebble has sometimes been mistakenly considered to be designed by those who don't investigate things carefully. Not only must it exhibit design, but it must be organized and have a purpose. Evolution on the other hand argues that everything is the result of random processes. IC is good for differentiating between design and evolution...Also, I would argue that the origin of life has so much evidence against it, that it argues for a designer. There are only two explanations, either it was done by design or by naturalistic processes.

    Here are some more details. In this link, you'll see William Dembski's specified complexity argument. More specifically is this blog.
    It must have a purpose? Sounds a bit platonic to me, but whatever. How do you determine somethings purpose? Evolution shows that things can have more than one use, but purpose presupposes design- something no biologic process or specimen has demonstrated.
    "Those who have crossed
    With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
    Remember us--if at all--not as lost
    Violent souls, but only
    As the hollow men
    The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot
    γνῶθι σεαυτόν

  14. #89
    Old Timer mighty_duck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    portland, or
    Posts
    418
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 12 Times in 12 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    790
    Quote Originally Posted by bob b View Post
    I find it extremely amusing that the term, "genetic algorithm" is used to label a complex, highly ordered and sophisticated computer program that was obviously designed by a highly intelligent human being.

    Talk about an oxymoron !!!!
    Who ever said evolution isn't complex, highly ordered or sophisticad? of course it is!
    The fact that it has random components doesn't change any of that.

    A genetic algorithm actually takes other algorithms, combines them in different ways,and/or makes mutations to them to get new algorithms, and then checks the fitness of the "offspring" algorithms. Remind you of anything?

    While the process is sophisticated, the resultant algorithm is not designed in the same way a mechanical engineer might design an engine. No one came in and designed the differnt parts to work efficiently together - a process did that.

    You may claim that the process is intelligent, but that is not the point. The point is that a process can make an algorithm that appears like it was put together by a human.

  15. #90
    Journeyman macguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    148
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
    I'm not sure what you're even trying to point out with these links.
    To refute your links...

    I skimmed those- seems like all they are is appeals to incredulity and moving the bar back.
    Incredulity is not a fallacious argument for crying out loud!!! It all depends on the form of argument...and it's arguing from what we know. This seems to be the frequent objection or should I say, escape route for the evolutionist.

    What's your point? I already said I don't consider junk DNA to be a good anti-ID argument.
    Whether it's good is not the point...It doesn't matter whether it is a good argument or not but that it asserts that there is no function because they don't know of any. To me, that would be fine since if it does have function, science would one day figure it out. You brought it up in the first place and many think it is science. My point is that if this, what you would call "argument from incredulity" can be science, why can't IC be science?
    The voiceless, the wasted...You soaked your hearts in gasoline. Now light it up and burn.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us