SX and Paradise Lost = Satanic ??

[razoredge]

just wow ! imagine that, people that are not up to your standards, not that I could not see that coming. SO here we are talking about personal beliefs, various ideas and views, a varity of theories... and come to find out, it was all a matter of contest to be won by the highest educated one thru his "presentation of case"

frankly I wasnt looking for an apology, not a believer in them either except at the extreme. Rather I was wanting to provide some recognition, I see it didnt sink, surely my failure for poor representation of case

So I now must grow down

snob much ?

 

[Kenneth R.]

Ok here's a quick example of the uphill battle I face on this forum. Several threads reference Richard Dawkins, a reknown mind in the scientific community no doubt but someone who has only 'earned' honorary doctorates never completed his actual doctorate from Oxford. I reference Dr. William Dembski in one of my posts, who has a Ph.D in both Mathmatics and Philosophy, and degrees in psychology, statistics, and theology. Behold, I get flamed for using a reference that cannot be valid. Ludicrous. This is the problem with debates today, sources are always considered invalid or biast if they come up with conclusions that differ from your point of view; even if they are far more educated than the sources used by your side of the argument.

Education is one thing. You can have an education (see President Bush) and be a complete dumbass. Actual intellect is revealed in the quality of argument, and specifically in the clarity of the premises, conclusion, and amplitude of evidence. Having a PhD doesn't make you smart. People assume that in order to obtain one, you must be smart. Most PhD holders probably are smart. It isn't a given though, and that sort of thing will never hold weight to me. Show me their work (ie premises, conclusion, evidence) and I will judge for myself. I don't blindly believe in anyone or anything, titles mean nothing.

 

[razoredge]

Ok here's a quick example of the uphill battle I face on this forum. Several threads reference Richard Dawkins, a reknown mind in the scientific community no doubt but someone who has only 'earned' honorary doctorates never completed his actual doctorate from Oxford. I reference Dr. William Dembski in one of my posts, who has a Ph.D in both Mathmatics and Philosophy, and degrees in psychology, statistics, and theology. Behold, I get flamed for using a reference that cannot be valid. Ludicrous. This is the problem with debates today, sources are always considered invalid or biast if they come up with conclusions that differ from your point of view; even if they are far more educated than the sources used by your side of the argument.

I must have missed that part and lack the interest in your highly upheld whos who of who in degrees to be concerned. What I heard was a group of different people from various backgrounds and interests expressing their views, ideas, or things they may have studied.

 

[Kenneth R.]

such heavy burdens we are brought to carry by these books when we really just need to get through life... and in todays world no less... in my eyes its not hard to see all the scepticism!

well Yeah, but for some, the stuff in those books (or any religious text) helps them face life and be positive. There are two edges.

 

[Taliwakker]

Yngvai X wrote

I think given the size of the universe and how many billions of galaxies there are and suns with planets like our own, I find it hard not to think that theres probably life somewhere else out there in the universe... however, if our planet has been around for however many billion years, and only within the last 140 or so have we even begun to advance technologically, I really don't think its possible for there to be an alien race that much more technologically advanced than ours ever reaching our solar system. I can't recall figures, but I remember reading the closest galaxy to harbor planets similar to earth is so far away it would be x amount (again, can't remember figures) of light years for them to get to us.

This explains something along these lines


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB_v99FSTYc

 

[Statler Waldorf]

Education is one thing. You can have an education (see President Bush) and be a complete dumbass. Actual intellect is revealed in the quality of argument, and specifically in the clarity of the premises, conclusion, and amplitude of evidence. Having a PhD doesn't make you smart. People assume that in order to obtain one, you must be smart. Most PhD holders probably are smart. It isn't a given though, and that sort of thing will never hold weight to me. Show me their work (ie premises, conclusion, evidence) and I will judge for myself. I don't blindly believe in anyone or anything, titles mean nothing.

I agree to an extent, but wouldn't you also agree that if you are referencing someone else's work it's important for that person to have a high degree of education? Dembski I believe is a very good source, he is not religious but also does not subscribe to everything he is force fed. I really like his books, definitely more than Dawkins. I lost all respect for Dawkins when Bill O'Reilly kicked his butt in a debate, yes Bill O'Reilly.

 

[razoredge]

In that case however Ken its not entirely 100% representitive of this current lack of comunication. Some of us were not out to prove a point regarding our ideals, thats including participants on both sides of the fence..... and those sitting the top.... lol

agree otherwise [Ken]

I've learned some new things though so its a win where it counts

 

[Statler Waldorf]

I must have missed that part and lack the interest in your highly upheld whos who of who in degrees to be concerned. What I heard was a group of different people from various backgrounds and interests expressing their views, ideas, or things they may have studied.

*places razoredge on ignore

 

[razoredge]

well Yeah, but for some, the stuff in those books (or any religious text) helps them face life and be positive. There are two edges.

I thought about that while I typed it and realized I was refering to how much more we are aware of history, environment and all things earthy and in some cases outside our atmosphere...... creating an extra burden today in what someone will believe

 

[razoredge]

*places razoredge on ignore

part of the growing up no doubt

why do people always put me on ignore.......

 

[Yngvai X]

Yngvai X wrote


This explains something along these lines


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB_v99FSTYc

Carl Sagan is awesome, from what I know about him.

 

[OfSinsAndShred]

Carl Sagan is awesome, from what I know about him.

Well, for what you don't know, I can verify: Carl Sagan is awesome.

 

[noble savage]

I agree to an extent, but wouldn't you also agree that if you are referencing someone else's work it's important for that person to have a high degree of education? Dembski I believe is a very good source, he is not religious but also does not subscribe to everything he is force fed. I really like his books, definitely more than Dawkins. I lost all respect for Dawkins when Bill O'Reilly kicked his butt in a debate, yes Bill O'Reilly.

Dembski not religious!? http://www.swbts.edu/index.cfm?pageid=800&enc=495E4B4A5433392C23442550435120415379

Everything he has proposed to be irreducibly complex has been shown to, in fact, reduce in complexity. He proposed that the bacterial flagellum was "intelligently designed" because he did not think it reduced. It did and it turned out when it was broken apart into simpler parts it was a type 3 secretory system. The same system of bacteria that are responsible for the plague.

The same is true for the blood clotting system in humans. He stated we must be intelligently designed because if you took away one chemical from our blood clotting system, it would fail. That is also false. Dolphins only have 5 of the chemicals and their system works fine. The puffer fish has 3 (I think) and it also works fine.

Dembski admitted, in court and under oath, that in order to accept intelligent design as a valid scientific theory he would have to stretch the definition of science to the point that astrology would also be included.

I mentioned Richard Dawkins (I was the only one I think.) because his writings on evolution where relevant to what we where discussing. Like him or hate him he is one of the most cited evolutionary biologists of our time.

Also, why would you loose respect for him because he lost an argument with Bill O'reilly? Who the hell could win an argument with him?

Also, I agree with Kenneth. You can have a Harvard education and still be a nutjob. I am not calling Dembski a nutjob, but I think there is a reason for his (And many others) rejection of evolution. They may feel that once people accept that they where descended from lower lifeforms, that they may become less moral, or something like that. Keep ID out of the classroom, but if people like Dembski want to keep it up great. It leads to good science. So far in all cases, Scientists have come up with the correct science behind their arguments.

 

[noble savage]

Well, for what you don't know, I can verify: Carl Sagan is awesome.

I third that! I just finished up Contact a few weeks ago. Incredible!

 

[Statler Waldorf]

Dembski not religious!? http://www.swbts.edu/index.cfm?pageid=800&enc=495E4B4A5433392C23442550435120415379

Everything he has proposed to be irreducibly complex has been shown to, in fact, reduce in complexity. He proposed that the bacterial flagellum was "intelligently designed" because he did not think it reduced. It did and it turned out when it was broken apart into simpler parts it was a type 3 secretory system. The same system of bacteria that are responsible for the plague.

The same is true for the blood clotting system in humans. He stated we must be intelligently designed because if you took away one chemical from our blood clotting system, it would fail. That is also false. Dolphins only have 5 of the chemicals and their system works fine. The puffer fish has 3 (I think) and it also works fine.

Dembski admitted, in court and under oath, that in order to accept intelligent design as a valid scientific theory he would have to stretch the definition of science to the point that astrology would also be included.

I mentioned Richard Dawkins (I was the only one I think.) because his writings on evolution where relevant to what we where discussing. Like him or hate him he is one of the most cited evolutionary biologists of our time.

Also, why would you loose respect for him because he lost an argument with Bill O'reilly? Who the hell could win an argument with him?

Also, I agree with Kenneth. You can have a Harvard education and still be a nutjob. I am not calling Dembski a nutjob, but I think there is a reason for his (And many others) rejection of evolution. They may feel that once people accept that they where descended from lower lifeforms, that they may become less moral, or something like that. Keep ID out of the classroom, but if people like Dembski want to keep it up great. It leads to good science. So far in all cases, Scientists have come up with the correct science behind their arguments.

Nothing on that page your link was to indicated he was religious. You can hold a degree in Theology and not be relgious. There are also quite a few members of the ID movement that are not religious. You also did not give any citation or even basis for anything you said about him or the flagellated tail. I just took BIO497, advance Evolutionary Biology and both of those systems you talked about are still considered irreducibly complex. At least I had the dignity to reference where I learned that, for all I know you're off reading "Big Bob's Backyard Darwin Newsletter". If you'd read "the Design Revolution" by Dembski you'd probably hvae more of a grasp of what he believes and why he believes it but I am quite sure the only things you know about him or the ID movement are what you have read published by Darwinists, not objective sources.

 

[Yngvai X]

The same is true for the blood clotting system in humans. He stated we must be intelligently designed because if you took away one chemical from our blood clotting system, it would fail. That is also false. Dolphins only have 5 of the chemicals and their system works fine. The puffer fish has 3 (I think) and it also works fine.

And if you took away one hydrogen molecule from the makeup of water, it would fail. What is the point of that argument? You could say that about anything. I don't get how that is supposed to "prove" intelligent design.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

And if you took away one hydrogen molecule from the makeup of water, it would fail. What is the point of that argument? You could say that about anything. I don't get how that is supposed to "prove" intelligent design.

Well read "The Design Revolutoin" or "Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwnism" for better information but I will give ya a quick run down.

Irreducible complexity deals with the mechanism of Natural Selection's inability to generate certain structures in organisms. Most structures require all the parts present in order to function properly and provide an advantage to the organism. A simple example would be a mousetrap. If an organism through random chance which is what NS works with were to develop the spring of the mouse trap as a structure; this would not provide any advantage for that animal when a selectrive pressure arose because the spring itself does not do anything. So in order for that animal to survive and pass its mousetrap genes on to its offspring the mousetrap must appear with all five parts in place and functioning. So natural selection cannot get you the mousetrap it can only act upon it once it is already present. Many Darwinists will claim that some of the pieces of the mousetrap were used for other structures in the organism and were just borrowed and used for the mousetrap, a principle known as co-option. This may be the case in some instances because some structures are similiar to ones found in ancestors of the organism. However most structures are completely unique and even if co-option was a valid explanation Irreducible Complexity would still apply to those former structures until you eventually had all one part structures all providing an advantage towards the organism which would never happen.

 

[noble savage]

Nothing on that page your link was to indicated he was religious. You can hold a degree in Theology and not be relgious. There are also quite a few members of the ID movement that are not religious. You also did not give any citation or even basis for anything you said about him or the flagellated tail. I just took BIO497, advance Evolutionary Biology and both of those systems you talked about are still considered irreducibly complex. At least I had the dignity to reference where I learned that, for all I know you're off reading "Big Bob's Backyard Darwin Newsletter". If you'd read "the Design Revolution" by Dembski you'd probably hvae more of a grasp of what he believes and why he believes it but I am quite sure the only things you know about him or the ID movement are what you have read published by Darwinists, not objective sources.

This is cited directly from the man responsible for writing most of the biology textbooks in America, Kenneth Miller. Those specific arguments are from a lecture he gave at case wester university (Which I already linked to twice.)

Dembski is a fraud. His college professor submitted a letter stating that his arguments where wrong. He has never had a paper peer reviewed. I don't care what he believes. He writes "scientific" books, but instead of sharing them with other scientists he releases them to an ignorant public, only to confuse them more. The ID movement is nothing but a relabeling of creationism. It's not science, it's a small group of hacks who want to by-pass the scientific process and cater the idea to sympathetic law makers to inject pseudoscience into schools.

Now, if you'll excuse me I'm going to go finish reading Big Bobs Backyard Darwin Newsletter. This is the issue that teaches us Darwinists how to block out the good science of Intelligent Design. Just one of many Darwinists conspiracy theories.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

This is cited directly from the man responsible for writing most of the biology textbooks in America, Kenneth Miller. Those specific arguments are from a lecture he gave at case wester university (Which I already linked to twice.)

Dembski is a fraud. His college professor submitted a letter stating that his arguments where wrong. He has never had a paper peer reviewed. I don't care what he believes. He writes "scientific" books, but instead of sharing them with other scientists he releases them to an ignorant public, only to confuse them more. The ID movement is nothing but a relabeling of creationism. It's not science, it's a small group of hacks who want to by-pass the scientific process and cater the idea to sympathetic law makers to inject pseudoscience into schools.

Now, if you'll excuse me I'm going to go finish reading Big Bobs Backyard Darwin Newsletter. This is the issue that teaches us Darwinists how to block out the good science of Intelligent Design. Just one of many Darwinists conspiracy theories.

Dude stick to physics. Dembski has had several articles published in TJ, a peer-reviewed scientific journal, look it up. Of course your textbook guy is going to call him a fraud because he and Dr. Jonathan Wells tore apart American textbooks for using fraudulant embryo sketches and not mentioning the pre-Cambrian explosion, so they are not going to be real popular amongst textbook writers (who in my opinion are the real hacks and 'beginner' scientists"). Somehow "Peer-reviewed" only means reviewed by people who agree with you, because believe me none of your Darwinistic Whores ever get their material reviewed by Scientists in opposing camps. ID is not creationism, I actually feel creation science is a stronger movement but I definitely think the ID guys are donig a good thing. Hard to believe that people you call "Hacks" can teach at Princeton, Oxford, and University of SF.

 

[noble savage]

Well read "The Design Revolutoin" or "Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwnism" for better information but I will give ya a quick run down.

Irreducible complexity deals with the mechanism of Natural Selection's inability to generate certain structures in organisms. Most structures require all the parts present in order to function properly and provide an advantage to the organism. A simple example would be a mousetrap. If an organism through random chance which is what NS works with were to develop the spring of the mouse trap as a structure; this would not provide any advantage for that animal when a selectrive pressure arose because the spring itself does not do anything. So in order for that animal to survive and pass its mousetrap genes on to its offspring the mousetrap must appear with all five parts in place and functioning. So natural selection cannot get you the mousetrap it can only act upon it once it is already present. Many Darwinists will claim that some of the pieces of the mousetrap were used for other structures in the organism and were just borrowed and used for the mousetrap, a principle known as co-option. This may be the case in some instances because some structures are similiar to ones found in ancestors of the organism. However most structures are completely unique and even if co-option was a valid explanation Irreducible Complexity would still apply to those former structures until you eventually had all one part structures all providing an advantage towards the organism which would never happen.

Natural selection is not random chance. How is it random chance that a helpful mutation (Could be due to sexual recombination, so therefor "random" doesn't apply.) that allows an organism to better reproduce and produce offspring be chance? It doesn't make sense. The better adapted live and those that don't adapt perish.

As for the mousetrap argument: