Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 151 of 151
Like Tree98Likes

Thread: intelligent design theory: logic in the argument?

  1. #101  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    Look how this went from a idea ( That's unsupported ) to a Nut Bar breakfast.. How can people be so pig headed.
    ( and when I said Pig Headed. I do not mean PIG headed ) I want to ask 'Them' who did this design work ? I have questions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    whatever, but if a guy wants to offend people for their beliefs, and even without proof that he is right, something must be wrong with him.
    He is not attacking people; he is attacking the theory of intelligent design. People might get offended by that, just as people might get offended if you attack other forms of creationism, climate change denialism, the truthers etc. However, such things happen with great regularity on science forums, since they are places people go to discuss these topics - and nonscientific theories in general get attacked quite often, A good approach there is to not read things that will offend you.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Senior Weterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Canada Saskatchewan
    Posts
    325
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    The proof that he is right about Intelligent Design being nonsense is in the idea of Intelligent Design itself. It has no supporting evidence and is based purely around skepticism and denial of facts.

    ID has the same amount of factual and logical support regarding origins as the Great Space-Faring Unicorn Hypothesis, wherein life was created by a race of super intelligent unicorns from Gamma Ceti II (read: none).
    nonsense that someone made people? that we didnt come from nothing?

    honestly why call me stupid for my belief that some guy in the sky made us, when you think we came from absolutely nothing. things dont make themselves. by your logic, you could believe that houses are not built, they just exist. they have always been there, or, if they werent always there, when they were created, they werent created by anything, they just appeared.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    The proof that he is right about Intelligent Design being nonsense is in the idea of Intelligent Design itself. It has no supporting evidence and is based purely around skepticism and denial of facts.

    ID has the same amount of factual and logical support regarding origins as the Great Space-Faring Unicorn Hypothesis, wherein life was created by a race of super intelligent unicorns from Gamma Ceti II (read: none).
    nonsense that someone made people? that we didnt come from nothing?

    honestly why call me stupid for my belief that some guy in the sky made us, when you think we came from absolutely nothing. things dont make themselves. by your logic, you could believe that houses are not built, they just exist. they have always been there, or, if they werent always there, when they were created, they werent created by anything, they just appeared.
    At no point has it ever been suggested we just poofed from nothing. We are the continuation of 4 billion years of evolutionary trials, which has resulted in increasing levels of complexity.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    nonsense that someone made people? that we didnt come from nothing?
    We didn't come from nothing. We came from our ancestors.

    things dont make themselves.
    Who makes snowflakes? Hurricanes? Who made the Giant's Causeway in Ireland? Who made the perfectly circular meteor craters all over the planet?

    by your logic, you could believe that houses are not built, they just exist.
    So again - who built the Giant's Causeway? Or does it just exist?

    they have always been there, or, if they werent always there, when they were created, they werent created by anything, they just appeared.
    A snowstorm recently hit the east coast. Was that snow always there? If not, who created the snowflakes? Did they just magically appear? After all, if no one created them, they must not be there!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Senior Weterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Canada Saskatchewan
    Posts
    325
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    nonsense that someone made people? that we didnt come from nothing?
    We didn't come from nothing. We came from our ancestors.

    things dont make themselves.
    Who makes snowflakes? Hurricanes? Who made the Giant's Causeway in Ireland? Who made the perfectly circular meteor craters all over the planet?

    by your logic, you could believe that houses are not built, they just exist.
    So again - who built the Giant's Causeway? Or does it just exist?

    they have always been there, or, if they werent always there, when they were created, they werent created by anything, they just appeared.
    A snowstorm recently hit the east coast. Was that snow always there? If not, who created the snowflakes? Did they just magically appear? After all, if no one created them, they must not be there!
    snowflakes got there from water and cold temperatures.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    snowflakes got there from water and cold temperatures.
    You claimed that things don't make themselves. So who made them? They are all perfect hexagons, unique and beautiful. And there are billions of them! Are you saying they just . . . happened?
    RedPanda likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    I've just watched these two YT with arguments against evolution. Are they right about the mathematics of evolution never creating new information? And its follow-on part 2.Problems with Darwin's theory of Evolution, Frog to Prince Problems with Darwin's theory of Evolution, Frog to Prince (1/2) - YouTube

    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,640
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    I've just watched these two YT with arguments against evolution. Are they right about the mathematics of evolution never creating new information? And its follow-on part 2.Problems with Darwin's theory of Evolution, Frog to Prince Problems with Darwin's theory of Evolution, Frog to Prince (1/2) - YouTube
    You have execrably bad judgment in selecting sources (Youtube vids? Really? C'mon -- that's embarrassing). It's almost as if you are starting from a dogmatic belief and seeking out only those things on the Interwebz that support your belief. This being a science forum, that won't fly.

    The abuse of information theory by YECs and IDiots is infamous. For an excellent discussion, see Talk Origins: Information Theory and Creationism

    If you're only interested in proselytising, please go away. If you're sincerely a seeker of knowledge, then stop being so effin' lazy.
    Tranquille likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,014
    At this time a well established understanding of evolution is not challenged by this. I side my views with and comfortably alongside the science of the understanding of Mr Dawkins and Darwin. The weight of argument is overwhelmingly in favor of the Darwinian principal. So said Mr Attenborough. whose views I trust. As for the 'Frog and Princess' You can see a relationship to the fish from the amphibious frog. You can see it becoming a lizard or snake. Some car salesmen are still closely related to snakes. The ONLY except able scientific revue d result fall onto the Evolutionary path. If you can not find that you are not being scientific. As is always the case. The alternate proposal is not except able to science.. Go Test it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    nonsense that someone made people? that we didnt come from nothing?
    It is the height of arrogance to believe that we are somehow too special to happen and exist by chance.

    honestly why call me stupid for my belief that some guy in the sky made us, when you think we came from absolutely nothing.
    Is this an invitation?

    things dont make themselves.
    Do we make the weather?

    by your logic, you could believe that houses are not built, they just exist. they have always been there, or, if they werent always there, when they were created, they werent created by anything, they just appeared.
    Who makes the weather?




    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1
    I've just watched these two YT with arguments against evolution. Are they right about the mathematics of evolution never creating new information?
    A video posted by "Spirit Lessons Divine Revelations".

    'Nuff said.

    It's like using pamphlets from the Creation Museum to discount evolution. Cringe worthy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Are they right about the mathematics of evolution never creating new information?
    oh puh-lease ! whenever creationists try their hand at mathematical or statistical proofs their approach is so simplistic that it's embarrassing - nearly as embarrassing as some of their lot's continued reference to the 2nd law of thermodynamics ages after it's falsified time and again

    we all know that evolution is the outcome of the highly unlikely, but to imply that it could never have happened in a month of sundays because the probability is vanishingly small is just the result of faulty logic

    likewise with the statement that evolution can't create new information : it doesn't follow from any mathematical proof, instead it's the result of using a very woolly definition of the word "information" and then following circular logic to show that "new" information can't arise by itself

    just like a book can be claimed to contain new information even though it uses the same 26 letters and many of the same words as other books, likewise with the genome : it's not the individual nucleotides or even the amino acids that make the information, but how they combine to make a creature
    KALSTER, tk421 and Tranquille like this.
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwirko View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Meyer is not an idiot. He is a geophysicist. But I understand the confusion.
    Are geophysicists immune from being idiots? If he believes what he writes then he is very much an idiot, because he refuses to learn from the reams of criticism that is routinely heaped upon his works. If he's just lying for Jesus then, well, I suppose he's quite clever.

    Wiki says his PhD is in history/philosophy.
    I was making an inside joke, as a geologist, about geophysicists - lets recall it was geophysicists (apart from a couple of luminaries such as Arthur Holmes) who rejected continental drift just because they couldn't think of a mechanism.

    Meyer's doctorate is as you say, but his bachelor's degree is geophysics.

    @ Howdidigethere: I took a look through my copy of Meyer's Signature in the Cell last night. He has an extensive bibliography of about the size one would expect for a work of that size. Very few of the quoted works are by authors who would agree with Meyer in any way. There is nothing intrinsically dishonest about that: he is using data to support his argument, just as any researcher would. I did not take the time to see if he was guilty of cherry picking, as that's another matter. What is important, and what you seem to have understood, is that the weight of material offered in support of an argument is only meaningful if that material truly supports the argument.
    Zwirko likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    whatever, but if a guy wants to offend people for their beliefs
    It is not about their beliefs, per se, but about their dishonesty.

    , and even without proof that he is right, something must be wrong with him.
    There is a TON of proof he is right.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    whatever, but if a guy wants to offend people for their beliefs, and even without proof that he is right, something must be wrong with him.
    PhDemon believes, with substantial reason, that ID is a political concept designed to introduce creationist ideas by the back door. You have attacked him for these beliefs without providing justification. May we therefore deduce that there must be something wrong with you?
    Strange and PhDemon like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    I've just watched these two YT with arguments against evolution. Are they right about the mathematics of evolution never creating new information? And its follow-on part 2.Problems with Darwin's theory of Evolution, Frog to Prince Problems with Darwin's theory of Evolution, Frog to Prince (1/2) - YouTube
    You have execrably bad judgment in selecting sources (Youtube vids? Really? C'mon -- that's embarrassing). It's almost as if you are starting from a dogmatic belief and seeking out only those things on the Interwebz that support your belief. This being a science forum, that won't fly.

    The abuse of information theory by YECs and IDiots is infamous. For an excellent discussion, see Talk Origins: Information Theory and Creationism

    If you're only interested in proselytising, please go away. If you're sincerely a seeker of knowledge, then stop being so effin' lazy.
    No I had watched a series of pro-evolution YTs prior to that, so I'm not biased.
    I'll check out your suggested link shortly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,430
    I see no need to respond to Weterman as others have made the points I would have (probably more politely) in the posts I have liked. ID is not a theory, it is not science, it is a political strategy to get ignorance taught in schools.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    At this time a well established understanding of evolution is not challenged by this. I side my views with and comfortably alongside the science of the understanding of Mr Dawkins and Darwin. The weight of argument is overwhelmingly in favor of the Darwinian principal. So said Mr Attenborough. whose views I trust. As for the 'Frog and Princess' You can see a relationship to the fish from the amphibious frog. You can see it becoming a lizard or snake. Some car salesmen are still closely related to snakes. The ONLY except able scientific revue d result fall onto the Evolutionary path. If you can not find that you are not being scientific. As is always the case. The alternate proposal is not except able to science.. Go Test it.
    Those YTs were quoting Richard Dawkins saying it won't generate new information. So I was confused a bit how the main advocate was seemingly speaking against mutation as the cause of evolution. I'll have to isolate the argument and search it out specifically.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Are they right about the mathematics of evolution never creating new information?
    oh puh-lease ! whenever creationists try their hand at mathematical or statistical proofs their approach is so simplistic that it's embarrassing - nearly as embarrassing as some of their lot's continued reference to the 2nd law of thermodynamics ages after it's falsified time and again

    we all know that evolution is the outcome of the highly unlikely, but to imply that it could never have happened in a month of sundays because the probability is vanishingly small is just the result of faulty logic

    likewise with the statement that evolution can't create new information : it doesn't follow from any mathematical proof, instead it's the result of using a very woolly definition of the word "information" and then following circular logic to show that "new" information can't arise by itself

    just like a book can be claimed to contain new information even though it uses the same 26 letters and many of the same words as other books, likewise with the genome : it's not the individual nucleotides or even the amino acids that make the information, but how they combine to make a creature
    Thanks for that answer Marnix.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,640
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Those YTs were quoting Richard Dawkins saying it won't generate new information. So I was confused a bit how the main advocate was seemingly speaking against mutation as the cause of evolution. I'll have to isolate the argument and search it out specifically.
    Cart-before-horse alert! Before you can do any of that, you need to study information theory, which you clearly have not. IDiots are fond of appropriating scientific terms without actually applying them scientifically. They may know some of the lyrics, but none of the music.

    Shannon's work on information theory was groundbreaking because he was able to define "information" in a rigorous way that does not rely on human-based notions of meaning. By decoupling information from meaning, he was able to treat information with mathematics in a way that no one had done before. IDiots are guilty of reintroducing meaning (either explicitly or implicitly), which then forbids the direct application of Shannon's work. But that doesn't stop IDiots from cherry-picking Shannon's results to fabricate an argument that allegedly falsifies evolution. It's a combination of intellectual dishonesty and a breathtaking incompetence, compounded by an insufferable arrogance. A defecta trifecta, if you will.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    honestly why call me stupid for my belief that some guy in the sky made us, when you think we came from absolutely nothing.
    I assume you're referring to the Big Bang Theory now and not evolution. Evolution certainly doesn't posit that we came from nothing. Very specific conditions are required for life to form and evolve.

    But let's assume that the Big Bang Theory begins with, "Life came from nothing". How is that any harder to accept than, "Life came from God"? To accept God, you must accept that he either came from nothing, has always existed, or was created by something else. The difference with following a scientific logic back to the formation of the universe as we know it is that we have to do so based upon models that actually function within our known physical laws. We are constrained by what we have observed and measured. God requires no such constraints. Thus, even the most hare-brained scientific theory (in your opinion) is STILL more logical than anything related to God.

    I'm the first to admit that, not being a physicist, going back to notions of the origins of the known universe are out of my grasp. I don't debate them because I lack the competence to do so. When you throw God into the mix, suddenly others who lack that competence are in the argument, muddling things up.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    honestly why call me stupid for my belief that some guy in the sky made us
    No one called you stupid.

    However, it might be considered foolish just to ignore evidence. Especially when that evidence was, you believe, created by your god. Wouldn't that be some form of blasphemy?

    There doesn't need to be a conflict between religion and science: if you god created the world we see, then why would she not want us to study that creation to find out more about it and wonder at how marvellous it is? That is what scientists do. Whereas religious nutters prefer to say, "if there is a conflict between reality and my belief (based on a faulty interpretation of a mistranslation of a metaphor) then reality must be wrong". That is stupid.

    You might want to take a look at: Home | BioLogos
    BioLogos is a community of evangelical Christians committed to exploring and celebrating the compatibility of evolutionary creation and biblical faith, guided by the truth that “all things hold together in Christ.”
    John Galt and astromark like this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Those YTs were quoting Richard Dawkins saying it won't generate new information.
    if previous history is anything to go by, chances is this a misinterpreted or misunderstood out-of-context quote
    this has happened so often to the likes of Dawkins and Gould that the former inserted a few side notes in his book "The Ancestor's Tale", reading something like this : "Warning to creationists : don't misuse this to prove ..."

    an author often builds up a counterargument for effect, making it sound like a certain development could not possibly have been brought about by evolution and/or natural selection, only to follow it by a lengthy explanation as to how the problem is only apparent and can easily explained using whatever solution the author brings forward

    the classical treatment by creationists is to quote out of context the one or more paragraphs about the problem, but nothing about its subsequent rebuttal which makes the apparent problem disappear into thin air - that's why most scientist consider creationists to be dishonest, since any impartial reader can see that there's two sides to the coin, whereas creationists only show the side they prefer to see
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Can I just burn down KFC? (It's closer, and while not as bad a creationism is still pretty awful)
    God created poutine you stupid f'ck!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Can I just burn down KFC? (It's closer, and while not as bad a creationism is still pretty awful)
    God created poutine you stupid f'ck!
    Sounds like the wrath of an Old Testament God trying to test us all with the trials of heart disease.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,430
    Nah, that's deep fried haggis:

    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Nah, that's deep fried haggis:



    You turned me off my banana cake!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,430
    Try deep frying it
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post

    if previous history is anything to go by, chances is this a misinterpreted or misunderstood out-of-context quote
    this has happened so often to the likes of Dawkins and Gould that the former inserted a few side notes in his book "The Ancestor's Tale", reading something like this : "Warning to creationists : don't misuse this to prove ..."

    an author often builds up a counterargument for effect, making it sound like a certain development could not possibly have been brought about by evolution and/or natural selection, only to follow it by a lengthy explanation as to how the problem is only apparent and can easily explained using whatever solution the author brings forward

    the classical treatment by creationists is to quote out of context the one or more paragraphs about the problem, but nothing about its subsequent rebuttal which makes the apparent problem disappear into thin air - that's why most scientist consider creationists to be dishonest, since any impartial reader can see that there's two sides to the coin, whereas creationists only show the side they prefer to see
    Isn't that how the whole premise of intelligent design came about? It was a response to the rejection of creationism, so to try to make it more palatable, creationism became intelligent design, where there was the Big Bang, evolution, etc, but all designed by the designer, for the purpose of this discussion, God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,430
    Pretty much, it's creationism wearing a new coat. In fact in the Dover trial weren't there subpeoenaed copies of draft textbooks where the only difference between creationism and intelligent design was the replacement of the word "creationist" with "design proponent", a fact given credence in one telling misprint which read "cdesign proponentsists". How anyone can take these dishonest scumbags seriously is beyond me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Those YTs were quoting Richard Dawkins saying it won't generate new information.
    if previous history is anything to go by, chances is this a misinterpreted or misunderstood out-of-context quote
    this has happened so often to the likes of Dawkins and Gould that the former inserted a few side notes in his book "The Ancestor's Tale", reading something like this : "Warning to creationists : don't misuse this to prove ..."

    an author often builds up a counterargument for effect, making it sound like a certain development could not possibly have been brought about by evolution and/or natural selection, only to follow it by a lengthy explanation as to how the problem is only apparent and can easily explained using whatever solution the author brings forward

    the classical treatment by creationists is to quote out of context the one or more paragraphs about the problem, but nothing about its subsequent rebuttal which makes the apparent problem disappear into thin air - that's why most scientist consider creationists to be dishonest, since any impartial reader can see that there's two sides to the coin, whereas creationists only show the side they prefer to see
    I watched it again to see if I missed a bit the first time. You can see Richard saying these very words but later it clarifies that all this information is unlikely to happen as a single event, but with slow and long term slow incremental change. It was clearly Dawkins who said DNA is information, and I can accept that DNA is information.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Those YTs were quoting Richard Dawkins saying it won't generate new information.
    if previous history is anything to go by, chances is this a misinterpreted or misunderstood out-of-context quote
    this has happened so often to the likes of Dawkins and Gould that the former inserted a few side notes in his book "The Ancestor's Tale", reading something like this : "Warning to creationists : don't misuse this to prove ..."

    an author often builds up a counterargument for effect, making it sound like a certain development could not possibly have been brought about by evolution and/or natural selection, only to follow it by a lengthy explanation as to how the problem is only apparent and can easily explained using whatever solution the author brings forward

    the classical treatment by creationists is to quote out of context the one or more paragraphs about the problem, but nothing about its subsequent rebuttal which makes the apparent problem disappear into thin air - that's why most scientist consider creationists to be dishonest, since any impartial reader can see that there's two sides to the coin, whereas creationists only show the side they prefer to see
    I watched it again to see if I missed a bit the first time. You can see Richard saying these very words but later it clarifies that all this information is unlikely to happen as a single event, but with slow and long term slow incremental change. It was clearly Dawkins who said DNA is information, and I can accept that DNA is information.
    So in otherword Dawkins at no point said "no new information is made"
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    I've just watched these two YT with arguments against evolution. Are they right about the mathematics of evolution never creating new information?
    No.

    Want to create new information? Drop a glass bottle. It will break into randomly shaped pieces. All that is new information - new shapes, new sizes, new geometries. Notice you haven't added any new material or intentionally added any "intelligence" - you just rearranged what was already there.

    In evolution that new information comes from mutation. A mutation can be a single or a very small number of genetic changes caused by radiation or other damage - and that represents new information. Is it useful? 99% of the time, no, it's not. It either does nothing or causes serious problems and the organism dies. But that 1% of the time it is useful, and the new information is retained.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Those YTs were quoting Richard Dawkins saying it won't generate new information.
    if previous history is anything to go by, chances is this a misinterpreted or misunderstood out-of-context quote
    this has happened so often to the likes of Dawkins and Gould that the former inserted a few side notes in his book "The Ancestor's Tale", reading something like this : "Warning to creationists : don't misuse this to prove ..."

    an author often builds up a counterargument for effect, making it sound like a certain development could not possibly have been brought about by evolution and/or natural selection, only to follow it by a lengthy explanation as to how the problem is only apparent and can easily explained using whatever solution the author brings forward

    the classical treatment by creationists is to quote out of context the one or more paragraphs about the problem, but nothing about its subsequent rebuttal which makes the apparent problem disappear into thin air - that's why most scientist consider creationists to be dishonest, since any impartial reader can see that there's two sides to the coin, whereas creationists only show the side they prefer to see
    I watched it again to see if I missed a bit the first time. You can see Richard saying these very words but later it clarifies that all this information is unlikely to happen as a single event, but with slow and long term slow incremental change. It was clearly Dawkins who said DNA is information, and I can accept that DNA is information.
    So in otherword Dawkins at no point said "no new information is made"
    I don't like sentences with double negatives. Yes I believe he said it was possible in increments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Nah, that's deep fried haggis:

    *Haggis*
    That looks delicious.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,430
    A Scottish delicacy. Follow it with a deep fried Mars bar for dessert and your heart is f###ed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    A Scottish delicacy. Follow it with a deep fried Mars bar for dessert and your heart is f###ed.
    Might do, with some milk. I eat (and love) offal, so haggis is no mean feat for me.



    Oh, er and creationism/ID is bollocks. (to stay on topic)
    PhDemon likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    OMG
    a deep fried haggis?

    Oh Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    OMG
    a deep fried haggis?

    Oh Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
    OK, so like, I'm not advertising but, the poutine at KFC is pretty good.

    Especially if you have a metabolism like me, I guess.



    And I'd believe in ID if it had unicorns in it somewhere.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    And I'd believe in ID if it had unicorns in it somewhere.
    rhinos are unicorns who didn't stick to their diet
    Tranquille likes this.
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Forum Senior Weterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Canada Saskatchewan
    Posts
    325
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    snowflakes got there from water and cold temperatures.
    You claimed that things don't make themselves. So who made them? They are all perfect hexagons, unique and beautiful. And there are billions of them! Are you saying they just . . . happened?
    i just said, in the post you quoted.

    how do i think we all got here? god made the universe. thats what i think. so dont offend me when you say that it all came from nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    The last deer i shot had a huge stomach --probably held over 2 gallons--
    I looked and thought, maybe that would work for a haggis--------?
    Thoughts?

    I ain't shared a haggis for more'n 10 years now, and I miss it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    so dont offend me when you say that it all came from nothing.
    Did anyone say it all came from nothing? You seem to be repeatedly attacking people for things they haven't said.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    how do i think we all got here? god made the universe. thats what i think. so dont offend me when you say that it all came from nothing.

    I think you are mistaken.

    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    And I'd believe in ID if it had unicorns in it somewhere.
    rhinos are unicorns who didn't stick to their diet

    Well, I cannot argue with that.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    i just said, in the post you quoted.
    You said "snowflakeds got there from water and cold temperatures." Since you refuse to say it explicitly, I'll state the implied answer, which is that "no one made them. They were a product of natural forces and materials in the environment."
    how do i think we all got here?
    We are a product of natural forces and materials in the environment.
    god made the universe. thats what i think.
    That's fine.
    so dont offend me when you say that it all came from nothing.
    I didn't. I said we came from materials in the environment and natural forces, just as you believe snowflakes do.
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    I said we came from materials in the environment and natural forces, just as you believe snowflakes do.
    We are stardust AND snowflakes. How cool is that!
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,507
    To summarize the ID Movement in one cartoon:


    (from Sidney Harris)
    KALSTER, Strange and Tranquille like this.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    I said we came from materials in the environment and natural forces, just as you believe snowflakes do.
    We are stardust AND snowflakes. How cool is that!
    AND we are golden!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55 N, 3 W
    Posts
    1,082
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    We are stardust...
    Someone once said that that stardust thing is just a euphemism for nuclear waste.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,532
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Weterman View Post
    snowflakes got there from water and cold temperatures.
    You claimed that things don't make themselves. So who made them? They are all perfect hexagons, unique and beautiful. And there are billions of them! Are you saying they just . . . happened?
    i just said, in the post you quoted.

    how do i think we all got here? god made the universe. thats what i think. so dont offend me when you say that it all came from nothing.
    Indeed, plenty of scientists believe in a God who made the world. They just don't see any need to believe that special supernatural intervention was required to create life, any more than it appears to be required to explain the workings of the rest of nature. There is no evidence for it and no prediction of what observations might lend support to the idea. Simply pointing out the gaps in our knowledge about the origin and development of life, which is all ID can do (if we agree charitably to leave aside their chronic tendency to misrepresent science), is no more evidence for miraculous intervention than the similar gaps which exist in our knowledge of, say, astronomy or geophysics. All gaps mean is, well, that there are gaps - which is why there is still science to do in these areas, thank goodness.

    You can be both a scientist and a perfectly good Christian (or Jew, or whatever) without going in for dishonest, politically driven tosh from the Discovery Institute.
    KALSTER and PhDemon like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Intelligent Design
    By ox in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: March 5th, 2013, 11:01 PM
  2. Intelligent Design ????
    By tszy in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 517
    Last Post: October 21st, 2012, 06:07 AM
  3. The Design Argument
    By distraff in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: January 10th, 2012, 02:05 PM
  4. Intelligent Design ????
    By tszy in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: November 22nd, 2011, 11:36 PM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: November 23rd, 2010, 12:07 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •