Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Dumbing Down Of America, 2
Topic Started: May 12 2006, 11:46 AM (5,640 Views)
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
Had a couple iced coffees with my friend today - we talked business & of course one of our favorite topics - ID & evolution. He surprised me by sending this in response to Chris's response to him:

Quote:
 
Your friend misses my point entirely---nonsense is nonsense.  Truth about God is truth--truth about evolution is truth, lies about either are not truth.  Unfortunately (for materialists) God is truth and most of evolutionary "science" is nonsense.  The fact that some structure resembles another is not proof that one evolved from the other,  it is just a story. Evolutionary science is full of stories about how this could have done that or this, and evolution explains everything regardless which direction anything goes;  a theory that explains everything is not a theory. 

The problem is metaphysics, not science.  Today's science is really "scientism" a religion based entirely on the presupposition that everything can be traced to and comes from only material things.  (go against this and see if you can get a grant)  It is a completely dead, pointless, meaningless, philosophy that leads to its own destruction.  If everything is simply the by-product of the interaction of dead matter then even the thoughts and arguments presented here (on both sides) are meaningless because they are only the results of random accidents and chance.  There is no rationality in randomness. 

No story in evolutionary theory has ever been demonstrated, duplicated, or validated. ---Ever---Because they all occurred in the past---the stories are only guesses based on hopeful thinking in a vain attempt to avoid dealing with the reality of God, or at least continue to receive funding--or better yet get on PBS or Discovery channel.  I don't have the quotes at hand but several senior evolutionary theorists have strongly said that the teleo-argument must not, and can not, be allowed.  I can understand their position as religion has not proven itself to be so positive all the time, but that does not mean that science should stop seeking the truth at the end of the data--whatever that truth is. 

The problems are massive: the beginning of life, (no current research has even a clue how something this complex could have come from any grouping of chemicals, only stories); the law of thermodynamics (everything proceeds from the organized to the disorganized--that's everything--no exceptions without outside inputs); how mutational forces can produce beneficial mutations not to mention how extra genes are added to dna from nothing; how to explain the paleontological record that shows not gradual change but massive changes in virtually no time (thus Gould's punctuated equilibrium); the fact that morphology is controlled not only by dna but by the microtubules (or some other mechanism) in the parents cells passed on at conception, so that mutations in the genes alone cannot account for the changes in body types, thusly whole groups of things have to change at once in order to produce evolutional change outside of variation within species - not to mention the fact that if something did manage to evolve the control mechanisms and functional usage must somehow arrive at the same time. 

I don't have the time to get into the information in living things (that is not materialistic in and of itself), or how does inanimate material produce thought, (again a nonmaterial thing), and countless other arguments.  As Richard Dawkins says, (at least I think he said it) Evolution has given intellectual satisfaction to the atheist--or something like that.  If that's what someone wants then by all means go there, but go there knowing you're on thin ice and weak science consisting of rampant speculation and politically enforced uniformity.  I for one prefer to rest outside of the prevailing paradigm of 21st century, materialism.  There is definitely something more to life than that.


One other thing he said that I thought interesting was, "You either believe in intelligent design or unintelligent design, those are the two camps."
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
:clap: :tiphat:
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Teryt's friend repeats: "Your friend misses my point entirely---nonsense is nonsense."

Nihilism is not the topic here.

His friend "Truth about God is truth"

Nor is religion.

And who is this friend to pretend to be the one who knows the truth about God, God himself?

"Unfortunately (for materialists) God is truth and most of evolutionary "science" is nonsense."

Now isn't that elitist and condescending? Unfortunately for materialists?



"The fact that some structure resembles another is not proof that one evolved from the other, it is just a story."

In all your friend has said, this is the only point out of the paper he argues with. Nothing else your friend says addresses anything else in the paper.

This is typical Creationist argument. If you can find one minor little detail to discredit then you claim you have discredited all of the paper, nay, all of evolution, hell, according to your friend all of science.

Ironically, your friend doesn't dispute the point. He simply says it's not enough. Then he ignores the rest of the paper.

And what does he dispute? That analogy is no basis for scientific conclusion. OK, ID is based on an analogy. You freind just shot his argument in the foot.



"Evolutionary science is full of stories about how this could have done that or this...."

False. Evolution is based upon scientific method--observation, experimentation, predition, testing, etc.

All those things that ID does not do.

"...and evolution explains everything regardless which direction anything goes...."

False. Evolution does not pretend to explain everything. As a scientific theory it is and always will be incomplete.

Your friend does not understand the nature of science.

"...a theory that explains everything is not a theory."

I agree. But it is those who resort to supernatural explanations for everything--first cause, creator, all knowing, all powerful--who are putting forth theories of everything.

Oops, he shot his argument in the foot again.



Your friend "The problem is metaphysics, not science. Today's science..."

Didn't I point this out before? This is the essence of the Creationist argument: To change the definition of science.

In Kansas the board of education actually rewrote the definition of science to include the religion. Next election cycle the people voted them out of office.



Your friend "...meaningless because they are only the results of random accidents and chance. There is no rationality in randomness. "

Have your friend go down to his local highschool and request a biology testbook and read it. This stuff about evolution being random chance is false--but it is typical Creationist distortion.

Science, evolution included, is all about discovering and explaining the laws of nature--what on earth is random and chance in these laws?



"No story in evolutionary theory has ever been demonstrated, duplicated, or validated."

Baloney. The paper he read is full of just such evidence--as are the papers I posted alongside that one but you conveniently didn't show your friend.

And evolutionary theory is not a story.



"The problems are massive...."

Each of the points he raises have been addressed in this thread. Like you, Teryt, instead of addressing challenges to his claims, he merely repeats them.

But let's repeat the challenges to just one: "The problems are massive: the beginning of life, (no current research has even a clue how something this complex could have come from any grouping of chemicals, only stories...."

You should explain to your friend, Teryt, that, as you have learned, evolutionary theory does not concern the beginning of life.

There are a few scientific studies that partially support abiogenesis--these were posted earlier in this thread. And there is a massive amount of sceintific research and evidence supporting the evolution of complexity.

What your friend is doing is typical Creationist argument: Cast doubt on evolution in hopes discrediting one minor point discredits all. But even the highschool biology textbook I quoted earlier does this. That is what science is about.

And typical of a Creationist, your friend assumes if he can discredit evolution then ID has been proven. Sorry, but you need to find evidence for ID. Difficult to do when you claim "no current research has even a clue how something this complex could have come from any grouping of chemicals, only stories". Your friend has shot his argument in the foot again.


Your friend concludes "I for one prefer to rest outside of the prevailing paradigm of 21st century, materialism."

Fine, if he prefers religious answers that's his free choice.

But he's shot his argument in the foot again because his answer lies outside science and therefore has no place in the science classroom.



"You either believe in intelligent design or unintelligent design, those are the two camps."

Yes, you either believe in religion or you believe science.



Teryt, I need to congratulate you on finding a clever way to avoid challenges and beg questions and simply, cicularly, repeat the same old tired arguments again.

For that you deserve applause and hat tipping.

Tell your friend to have his foot looked at. ;)
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
Well I had a nice, finely crafted response here, but it disappeared on me somehow! :banghead: Now I'm frustrated & not in the mood to post it again, or do I have the time! #@$$%$#@@
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
Just reading through all the posts. Please forgive me, not done yet. I was away camping and when I came back, I find am behind on everything!

ngc1514
Jun 2 2006, 07:13 AM

cmoehle
Jun 1 2006, 09:18 PM
Eric, here's where I am with getting my head around what you're saying about order.

Demski's main argument for ID is the probability of the design perceived is so miniscule it had to be designed.

The WAP says, simplyfying, observed conditions in the universe must be those that allow the observer to exist

Both assume a universe that is special.

But modern physics posits 10 to the 500th, give or take a few trillion, possible universes all with their own laws, particles and constants (c.f., Leonard Susskind).

This universe is not special.

My head hurts! :ohmy:

Sounds good to me.

This part about "probability of design" is the weakest. Coming up with all these huge numbers to show how the odds of these systems developing "randomly" is fatuous. The IDers are looking at what the universe is like now and ASSUMING that this is the ONLY way the universe can be. False, false and false!

Probability of design assumes there was a design; something that has yet to be observed. There is no design, only function.

I've used the analogy of the archer and grassy field before, but it is so applicable here that I'll trot it out one more time.

An archer fires an arrow randomly into a large, grassy field. Not surprisingly, the arrow hits a blade of grass.

An IDer comes along and marvels at the odds of the arrow hitting that particular blade and comes to the conclusion that only by god directing the arrow's flight could that single blade have been hit.

The odds, the probability, can only be calculated before the archer lets fly. After the arrow landed, the probabilty of that blade being hit goes to 1.0 because it was hit. The probability of humans arising 13 billion years after the universe sprang into being is, likewise, 1.0 - because we are here. There was no intial design, no plans or requirements and no need for us to be here. We just am.

Just couldn't let this pass by without comment.

I pointed this out before, and it was not responded to.

Concerning Eric's arrow analogy....Life stating isn't caused one arrow, but trillions of arrows all hitting 1 blade of grass on trillions of different fields. Life is just that complex.

Also....The arrow hitting just the right spot for life to start sounds like an accidental happening. Somehow, you claim it is not. I cannot see how it could be anything else, using your analogy.

Demski's "probability of design" thought makes perfect sense to me, not weak at all. This does not mean that the universe has to be special. Seems to me, this is irrelivant. So our universe is not special, so what? This doesn't change the "probability of design" at all (ignoring the fact that there is no proof of alternate universes exept maybe in math). Our perseption of this universe does not change because there may be more universes out there....
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
Had to respond to this one also, again, my appologies.
cmoehle
Jun 1 2006, 04:16 AM
"I would ask the Steven Weinberg why it is necessary to name the designer?"

You quoted him, he already answered you: "If you don't, then what are we talking about?" Nothing?

I don't agree. We are not talking about nothing. Not a fair argument.

Quote:
 
"He suggest that unless you say the designer is God or something else, ID has no credibility, but he does not say why."

You quoted him, he already answered you: "then you still must confront the question "why?""


No I don't. Just because I cannot answer "why" (and still be scientific) does not mean that I have to. Again, an unfair argument. He gives no reason why the question "why" must be answered.

Quote:
 
"If religion is supposed to answer "why", why then do you think we are conceited when we do?"

Because you don't. Ironically, you, too, have just revealed who you think the designer is, confirming again ID is religion.

No, I revealed who I think the designer is, not who the designer really is. Again unfair conclusion from the supplied info.

Quote:
 
"You seem to be unfair. "

Seems rather personal. But I'll bite. How am I unfair? Or can you tell us why God designed the universe?

Not trying to be personal, I just think your arguments are unfair. Why?

1. Applying a catch 22, if I don't reveal the designer, then I am talking about nothing, but if I do, it is religion. The reality is in ID, I am talking about a designer who is unknown. If you have a murder you are investigating, and you don't know who the muderer is and cannot name him or her, does not mean you are talking about nothing.

2. If I name the designer while talking about religion, I make ID (where I have not named the designer) religion. These are two separate things. When I have my religion hat on, I know who the designer is, when I have my ID hat on, I don't.

<Religion hat on> God designed the universe to reveal his glory. To who is he doing this other than us? I don't know. </Religion hat on>

In ID "why" is irrelivent. The evidence points to a designer. Not knwoing why, does not mean the evidence is not there! If and when we meet him, who ever he is, we could ask him/her/it.
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Alan, welcome back. Yes, way behind, as all that's been dealt with, many times over, as you guys just keep repeating the same arguments, ignoring any counter arguments--or devolving into personal beleifs and such.


"Life stating isn't caused one arrow, but trillions of arrows all hitting 1 blade of grass on trillions of different fields. Life is just that complex."

Increasing the number of arrors does not increase complexity. A zillion dots is not more complex than one dot. Complexity is something else--which I'll leave to you to figure out as an exercise.

Nor does the number of arrows change the basic counter argument to ID's claim of improbable complexity after the fact. It's just another WAP.



"Also....The arrow hitting just the right spot for life to start sounds like an accidental happening. Somehow, you claim it is not. I cannot see how it could be anything else, using your analogy."

And why do you think it is not. Please do more than simply disagree. State your reasons. Unless it is just personal opinion or belief, which is irrelevant to discussion here.



"Demski's "probability of design" thought makes perfect sense to me, not weak at all. This does not mean that the universe has to be special. Seems to me, this is irrelivant. So our universe is not special, so what? This doesn't change the "probability of design" at all (ignoring the fact that there is no proof of alternate universes exept maybe in math). Our perseption of this universe does not change because there may be more universes out there...."

Do you understand and, if you do, can you explain Dembski's argument? Special is at the heart of his mathematical (flawed at that, and non-scientific) argument. Your disagreement is disagreement with Dembski.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
ngc1514
Jun 1 2006, 06:47 AM
Quote:
 
And here is where your philosophy falls short. You cannot answer the question.


Umm... Alan... I answered the question. Just didn't do so under the constrictions you attempted to impose. You put it as either-or and I showed there was another alternative.







No you did not. You essentially said the universe "is". If you go into your child's room and it is a complete mess exept for the dresser, where everything on it is placed in an orderly fashion. To be accurate, the presence of order in your child's room gives it order, even if it is not completely orderly.

Quote:
 
As long as you are accusing others of not answreing questions, how about this one that's been asked of you more than once:  How would you falsify intelligent design?
I already did answer that question. You want me to dig up the link again?

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Billions of people who look at the universe, see intelegence and order. Its obvious to them. IMHO, it is the meter that God moves to show us he is real.


Billions of people who look at the universe can't differentiate out Zuben El Genubi from Zubeneschamali. [spelling flame]Oh... it's nice, if you are going to talk about intelligence to occasionally spell it correctly. [/spelling flame] Science is not done by public acclaim or popularity. Those same billions (and, apparently you, as well) can't give a definition of "order" that points to intelligence in the universe.

Care to give it a try?
I did give a definition. It is assumed that order comes from inteligence since there is no example of order coming from anything else. And don't use the universe as an example. This is circular.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
But you and others cannot see it, because of a "theory". An idea unproven has binded you and others to the simple fact that the world was designed by some intelegence.


He claims, without any evidence to demonstrate this to be true. He makes a major pronouncement about evolution being "unproven" even though it's been pointed out to him - multiple times - that theories are never proven true, only false. It's like pouring water into a sieve. And, as much as I hate to disabuse you, Alan, your claiming it to be a "simple fact" doesn't come close to making it so.

You misunderstand me. I am saying that you are using an unproven theory as an excuse to ignore evidence.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Order requires intelegence. You say there is no proof of that, you think that order can come out of an unintelegent happening. Crash your RV into a tree 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times, and one of those times, you might have order! I think not. What you will really have is 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 different ways your RV can come apart. Maybe, if you are lucky, 2 of the times the RV will come apart the same exact way, but you will NEVER have order.


Alan, we've already discussed non-deterministic systems and the theory of chaos. We've also touch on the difference between living and non-living systems in regards to modifications of environment. Crashing an RV into a tree is a non-deterministic system and the results are those expected by Chaos Theory.

We will have order after the crash if I get to mark where everything falls and then point to the positions of the rubble as evidence. This is analogous to your argument.

Go crash god into a tree and let me know what happens.
You are saying that life is a deterministic system? Sounds like ID to me.

Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
cmoehle
Jun 8 2006, 08:44 PM
Alan, welcome back. Yes, way behind, as all that's been dealt with, many times over, as you guys just keep repeating the same arguments, ignoring any counter arguments--or devolving into personal beleifs and such.


Alan - yes, welcome back!

And I would add that we've also established that there is a belief system Chris & Eric have been stating here: the scientific belief system.

But also that this current scientific belief system is based upon a modern deviation from simply seeking the truth, to one of a focus on materialism only.
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
Oh, I would also add that we've established that the two camps can be categorized as either intelligent design or unintelligent design.
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
teryt
Jun 8 2006, 03:58 PM
cmoehle
Jun 8 2006, 08:44 PM
Alan, welcome back. Yes, way behind, as all that's been dealt with, many times over, as you guys just keep repeating the same arguments, ignoring any counter arguments--or devolving into personal beleifs and such.


Alan - yes, welcome back!

And I would add that we've also established that there is a belief system Chris & Eric have been stating here: the scientific belief system.

But also that this current scientific belief system is based upon a modern deviation from simply seeking the truth, to one of a focus on materialism only.


Oh, I would also add that we've established that the two camps can be categorized as either intelligent design or unintelligent design.

Yes, your friend made this claim.

It's been countered in my simple rebuttal: "Yes, you either believe in religion or you believe science."

Miss that? There's a world of difference between believe in and believe. You might say you believe facts (sun, temperature) imply a conclusion (hot day), but you would not, speaking proper English, say I believe in those facts, or conclusion, or implication.

Did you point out to Alan that with that statement your friend refuted everything you and Alan have said about ID being science? Your friend is saying ID is religion. And, once again, we are drawn to the inevitable conclusion, ID as religion does not belong in the science classroom.


As for intelligent/unintelligent, could you define what you, er, your friend means by those terms?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
Yeah, that's it - my friend said it. Yeah! (he's big, white & doesn't have floppy ears). LOL

Somehow I knew you would take that to mean he said ID is a religion. I just knew it!
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Alan "I would ask the Steven Weinberg why it is necessary to name the designer?"

Me "You quoted him, he already answered you: "If you don't, then what are we talking about?" Nothing?"

Alan "I don't agree. We are not talking about nothing. Not a fair argument."

Can you bother to tell us why you don't agree?

If not nothing, then what are we talking about?

Why is it not fair?

Please give your sttements some substance, some meaning. I have no idea what you disagree with, what you're talking about then, or what's unfair.




Alan "He suggest that unless you say the designer is God or something else, ID has no credibility, but he does not say why."

Me "You quoted him, he already answered you: "then you still must confront the question "why?"""

Alan "No I don't. Just because I cannot answer "why" (and still be scientific) does not mean that I have to. Again, an unfair argument. He gives no reason why the question "why" must be answered."

No, you don't. But you want to know why why must be answered? Sounds silly. His point is you can't answer it.



Alan "If religion is supposed to answer "why", why then do you think we are conceited when we do?"

Me "Because you don't. Ironically, you, too, have just revealed who you think the designer is, confirming again ID is religion."

Alan "No, I revealed who I think the designer is, not who the designer really is. Again unfair conclusion from the supplied info."

Uh, what's the difference? You think the Designer is God just like Jane and Teryt and his friend.

Are you all keeping us in the dark?

Again, what is unfair? I have no idea what you mean.





"I just think your arguments are unfair. Why?"

At last....

Alan explains unfair: "1. Applying a catch 22, if I don't reveal the designer, then I am talking about nothing, but if I do, it is religion. The reality is in ID, I am talking about a designer who is unknown. If you have a murder you are investigating, and you don't know who the muderer is and cannot name him or her, does not mean you are talking about nothing."

But indeed either you identify the Designer or it is about nothing. ID does not explain process--what, where, when, or how the universe was designed. You admitted before it does not answer why. If it does not explain who, then it is saying nothing.

Even in a murder case, until you identify the murdered in some way, you are indeed talking about nothing--you haven't got a clue, so to speak.

I still don't understand what you mean by unfair argument.


Alan tries to explain unfair again: "2. If I name the designer while talking about religion, I make ID (where I have not named the designer) religion. These are two separate things. When I have my religion hat on, I know who the designer is, when I have my ID hat on, I don't. <Religion hat on> God designed the universe to reveal his glory. To who is he doing this other than us? I don't know. </Religion hat on>"

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

How does your double-speak make me unfair? I'm just pointing it out.


Alan tries to explain unfair one more time: "In ID "why" is irrelivent. The evidence points to a designer. Not knwoing why, does not mean the evidence is not there! If and when we meet him, who ever he is, we could ask him/her/it."

The claim was that you couldn't explain why, not that you could.

"evidence points to a designer"--and it's asked again, what evidence is this, evidence not explained by evolution, or the laws of nature?

While you were away we covered the eye, flagellum, and many other evidences claimed by ID but explained by evolutionary theory. So if you answer please do not repeat cicularly.

"If and when we meet him, who ever he is, we could ask him/her/it." So you know already the Designer is of a nature we could meet and ask him/her/it, that implies a human, capable of greeting, listening and speaking. Is that the analogical human of Paley's watchmaker?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
teryt
Jun 8 2006, 04:56 PM
Yeah, that's it - my friend said it. Yeah! (he's big, white & doesn't have floppy ears). LOL

Somehow I knew you would take that to mean he said ID is a religion. I just knew it!

That's what he said. Well, actually, to be picky, he did not say ID is a religion, but a part of believing in religion. A difference, you know.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
cmoehle
Jun 8 2006, 10:10 PM
teryt
Jun 8 2006, 04:56 PM
Yeah, that's it - my friend said it. Yeah! (he's big, white & doesn't have floppy ears).  LOL

Somehow I knew you would take that to mean he said ID is a religion.  I just knew it!

That's what he said. Well, actually, to be picky, he did not say ID is a religion, but a part of believing in religion. A difference, you know.

Well, that's some progress at least! (and I won't even mention that you misrepresented it - I won't - disregard this parenthetical statement)
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply